










^^SSSKBSS^ 


Class_JiTI±_w O 


Book 


ZPck 


Copyright N 0 .. 



C0KRIGHT DEPOSIT 


1 




































































THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 










THE PASSION AND GLORY 
OF CHRIST 


A COMMENTARY ON THE EVENTS FROM 
THE LAST SUPPER TO THE ASCENSION 

BY 

Mgr. FI X. POELZL, S.T.D. 

Professor of Theology at the University of Vienna 


Translated from the German 
By A. M. BUCHANAN M.A. (London) 


REVISED AND EDITED BT 

Rev. C. C. MARTINDALE, S.J. 


NEW YORK 

JOSEPH F. WAGNER (Inc.) 


LONDON: B. HERDER 



ilifjil Obstat 

ARTHUR J. SCANLAN, S. T. D. 

Censor Librorum 


imprimatur 

* PATRICK J. HAYES, D. D. 

Archbishop of New York 


New York, October 21, 1919 


r 



JAN -2 1920 


Copyright, 1919, by Joseph F. Wagner, New York 


©CI.A561222 


/VV0 


I 


CONTENTS 


PART I 

THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST 


SECTION I 

Page 

Preliminary Incidents. 3 

1. The Sanhedrin’s Deliberation and Decision Regarding Christ . . 3 

2. The Anointing of Christ in Bethany. 9 

3. The Agreement Between Judas and the High Priests. 16 

SECTION II 

The Paschal Feast and the Last Supper. 23 

1. Time and Place of the Paschal Supper. 24 

2. The Jewish Paschal Supper; its Sacrificial Character. 36 

3. Our Lord’s Desire for the Paschal Supper. 42 

4. Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist. 47 

5. The Treason of Judas Foretold; the Traitor’s Departure. 65 

6. The Strife among the Apostles. 76 

7. Our Lord’s Prayer for Simon Peter. 83 

8. Prediction of the Apostles being Scandalized, and of Peter’s Denial 93 

9. The Struggle Destined for the Apostles. 99 

SECTION III 

Christ in Gethsemani.103 

1. Christ's Agony in the Garden of Gethsemani.104 

2. Christ is Seized .115 

SECTION IV 

Christ Before the Jewish and Gentile Tribunals.125 

1. Christ Before Annas.126 

2. The Night Session of the Sanhedrin.131 

3. Peter’s Denial.139 

4. The Morning Session of the Sanhedrin.146 

5. The Traitor’s Death.151 

6. The First Trial Before Pilate.156 

7. Christ Before Herod.168 

























VI 


CONTENTS 


Page 

8 . The Condemnation of Christ and the Release of Barabbas ... 171 

9. Christ is Scourged and Mocked . 179 

10. Ecce Homo.186 

SECTION V 

The Crucifixion and Burial of Christ.197 

1. The Way of the Cross.197 

2. The Crucifixion and Death of Christ.209 

3. Wonderful Events that Followed our Lord’s Death.237 

4. The Thrust with the Lance.243 

5. The Burial of Christ.252 

6. The Sepulchre is Sealed and Guarded.259 

PART II 

THE GLORY OF JESUS CHRIST 


SECTION I 

Christ’s Resurrection and Manifestations .267 

1. The Accounts of the Four Gospels.267 

2. The Women's Visit to the Sepulchre.273 

3. The Angel and the Women.277 

4. Peter and John at the Sepulchre.281 

5. Christ Appears to Mary Magdalen.284 

6. Christ Appears to the Women.291 

7. The Guards at the Sepulchre and the Chief Priests.295 

8. The Disciples on the Way to Emmaus.298 

9. Christ Appears to the Apostles in the Absence of Thomas .... 308 

10. Christ Appears to the Apostles when Thomas is Present .... 314 

11. Christ Appears to Several Apostles near the Lake of Tiberias . . 320 

12. Christ Confers the Primacy upon Peter.327 

13. The Bestowal of Authority on the Apostles.338 

14. Christ Appears to the Apostles in Jerusalem on the Day of His 

Ascension.346 

SECTION II 


The Ascension of Christ into Heaven 


354 


























EDITOR’S PREFACE 


The author of this book seems to us to have deserved well of 
two classes of readers: priests, including those preparing to be 
priests; and those of the laity who, in rapidly increasing num¬ 
bers, join to sufficient leisure and education the desire to be well 
acquainted with their religion and the documents which describe 
its origin. For there are few enough theological students and 
priests who, before or after ordination, would be able to accum¬ 
ulate the rich and varied evidence and opinions which they 
will find treasured in this book upon the Passion; and again, 
there are many of the laity who, even with plenty of time and 
of money at their disposal, would be scarcely able to find so 
masterly a “ totalization ” of the material anywhere else. 

Books of all sorts, differing in detail of conclusion, and even 
in method and in plan, must needs be written upon so vast a 
subject: and there will be mental temperament enough to wel¬ 
come all of them. In this volume the author combines with 
orthodoxy and great erudition that measure of piety which will 
satisfy those whose feeling as well as thought is Catholic; he 
has never sacrificed the scientific method to devotion, but he has 
never, on the other hand, stifled the spirit by his learning. The 
translator, observing this, has held rigorously to the text where- 
ever that kind of accuracy was demanded, but has permitted 
herself a wise minimum of freedom, though never infidelity to 
the sense, where the subject allowed of it. The small measure 
of revision for which we have been asked, permitted us to 
simplify and abbreviate yet further, though very seldom, the 
original. 

We may here recommend at once a very few books, in Eng¬ 
lish or French, for those to whom the learned volumes in 
German, quoted by the author, are not readily accessible. In 
addition to the well-known works by the Abbe C. Fouard, trans¬ 
lated into English, we gladly recall Brassac’s Gospels and Jesus 
Christ; the various books by M. Lepin upon the Gospels; Fr. 


Vlll 


EDITOR’S PREFACE 


M. J. Lagrange’s noble work, S. Marc; Fr. Calmes upon St. 
John; and in general the incomparable production of the Do¬ 
minican Ecole Biblique at Jerusalem, soon, we trust, to be once 
more in full activity after its inevitable but deplorable interrup¬ 
tion. In particular all that relates to the topography of Jerusa¬ 
lem will have to be sought in the learned, sane and lucid pages 
of Jerusalem by Vincent and Abel. The Chronology of the 
Passion, again, is thoroughly, independently, yet manageably 
discussed by Fr. C. Lattey in an appendix to his St. Mark in the 
Westminster texts. Those who wish either to anticipate or to 
regain a comprehensive view of the exhaustive discussions de¬ 
voted by our author to certain points, cannot do better than to 
refer to the excellent articles upon them in the Catholic Ency¬ 
clopedia, and, indeed, in the works of Dr. Gigot upon the New 
Testament, and of course in Fr. H. Pope, O.P.’s recently pub¬ 
lished Aids to the students of the Bible. Nor, assuredly, should 
the two great French dictionaries, that of Theology and that of 
Apologetics, still in course of publication, be by any means 
neglected. 

Those, finally, and we hope there are many, who feel the 
need of allowing their inspiration to keep pace with the activity 
of their intelligence, will be much helped by Hole’s Jesus of 
Nazareth , in which pictures of no slight artistic charm are sanc¬ 
tioned by a scientific preparation and comment. 

We trust, therefore, that this treatise will serve at once as a 
wise check upon hastily formed opinions, and as a welcome 
stimulus to personal thought and intelligent devotion. 

C. C. MARTINDALE. 


Oxford, England. 


Part I 

THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST 



THE PASSION AND GLORY 
OF CHRIST 


SECTION I 


PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 



HIS section contains an account of three events: (i) the 


■*- Sanhedrin’s deliberation and decision regarding Christ; 
(2) the anointing of Jesus in Bethany; (3) the agreement 
between Judas and the high priests concerning the arrest of 
Jesus. Matthew and Mark allude to all three occurrences; 
Luke omits all'mention of the anointing in Bethany, whereas 
this alone is recorded by John. 

The following facts are revealed in this section, and bear 
the characteristic stamp of Gospel narrative: Jesus was not 
outwitted by His enemies, but possessed exact knowledge of 
the fate awaiting Him, and went of His own accord, without 
fear and hesitation, to meet suffering. 

I. The Sanhedrin’s Deliberation and Decision 
Regarding Christ 

Matthew xxvi. 1. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended all these 
words, he said to his disciples: 2. You know that after two days shall be 
the pasch, and the son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified: 
3. Then were gathered together the chief priests and ancients of the 
people into the court of the high priest, who was called Caiphas. 4. And 
they consulted together that by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus, and put 
him to death. 5. But they said: Not on the festival day, lest perhaps there 
should be a tumult among the people. 

Mark xiv. 1. Now the feast of the pasch, and of the azymes was after 
two days: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might by 
some wile lay hold on him and kill him. 2. But they said: Not on the 
festival day, lest there should be a tumult among the people. 

Luke xxii. 1. Now the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the 
pasch, was at hand. 2. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how 
they might put Jesus to death: but they feared the people. 


4 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Five days before the Pasch , 1 on the tenth day of the month 
Nisan, which in the year of the Crucifixion was a Sunday, 
Jesus Christ made His solemn entry into the Jewish capital, and 
was publicly hailed as the Messiah by the crowds that escorted 
Him from Bethany, and by those that poured out of Jerusalem 
to meet Him. The fact that He made His solemn entry into 
Jerusalem on the very day on which the law 2 required the Jews 
to set apart the Paschal lamb was to indicate that the time 
had come for the true Victim 3 to take the place of the figure 
which had hitherto represented Him. 

The inhabitants of Jerusalem, although for the most part hostile to Christ, 
perceived from the signs of the times that great events were at hand; but, 
as they were unwilling to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, the homage 
offered Him aroused their indignation. 4 This was especially the case with the 
members of the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who at first were 
forced to confess themselves powerless to resist the popular enthusiasm for 
Jesus, 5 but after a while gained sufficient courage to assail Him. They 
saw that His popularity rested chiefly with a large number of pilgrims who 
had come to Jerusalem for the festival, and they sought means to counter¬ 
act this popularity and to bring about His destruction. Therefore the chief 
priests, 6 the Pharisees in union with the Herodians whom they hated, 7 
the Sadducees, 8 and again the Pharisees,® asked Christ insidious questions 
in order to discredit Him with the populace. However, on each occasion 
He not only silenced His enemies, but took, as it were, the offensive, and 
ended His ministry in their midst by uttering a solemn denunciation of the 
scribes and Pharisees. 10 Then with His disciples He withdrew from Je¬ 
rusalem to the Mount of Olives, whence He viewed the city, and uttered 
a prophetic discourse foretelling His second coming, the end of the world 
and the last judgment. 11 These proceedings took place on the Monday and 
Tuesday, and perhaps on the Wednesday also, of Holy Week. 

Matthew alone introduces his account of the Passion with the 
statement “when Jesus had ended all these words.” Various 
interpretations have been assigned to this remark, which may 
refer to all of Christ’s discourses uttered after His solemn 
entry into Jerusalem, but some commentators think that the 
words refer to all Christ’s speeches recorded by Matthew, i.e., 
to His whole ministry . 12 Matthew, again, is the only evangelist 
who states that our Saviour warned His apostles 1 of the immi- 


I Compare John xii. 12, and xii. I. a Exod. xii. 3. 

3 1 Cor. v. 7; cf. John i. 29. 4 Matthew xxi. 10. 

5 John xii. 19. 6 Matthew xxi. 23 sqq. 

7 Matthew xxii. 15 sq. 8 Matthew xxii. 23 sqq. 

9 Matthew xxii. 34 sqq. 10 Matthew xxiii. 1 sqq. 

II Matthew xxiv. 1 sqq. 

12 Bede: Omnes sermones, quos ab initio evangelii sui usque ad tempus 
yassionis compleverat. Aquinas, Maid., and others. 



PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


5 


nent tragedy, which according to Mark the members of the 
Sanhedrin were doing their best to bring about: “You know 
that after two days shall be the Pasch, and the Son of Man 
shall be delivered up to be crucified. ,, 

This announcement was made for various reasons. The 
disciples had to be taught that Jesus was not outwitted by His 
enemies, but trod the path of suffering voluntarily, without 
fear or hesitation, being fully aware of all the circumstances. 1 
The precise indication of the day when His Passion should 
begin was intended by our Lord to strengthen His disciples in 
their faith in Him, since the occurrence of the events foretold 
would testify to His omniscience. Moreover, the fulfillment of 
this prophecy would confirm the apostles and all subsequent 
disciples in their confidence that the other prophecies, concern¬ 
ing the destiny of the Church and the end of the world, would 
likewise be fulfilled. 

The date of the beginning of the Passion is fixed by the 
evangelists thus: “ The feast of the Pasch and of the azymes 
was after two days” (Mark); “The feast of unleavened 
bread, which is called the Pasch, was at hand” (Luke). The 
expression: “ the Pasch and the azymes ” is a careful designa¬ 
tion of the whole festival, which began with the eating of the 
Paschal lamb on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month 
Nisan, and lasted until the twenty-second day. During this 
period the law forbade the Jews to eat any but unleavened 
bread. We shall have occasion further on to discuss in detail 
the significance of the festival and the manner of its observance. 

It is certain that our Saviour kept the Paschal feast on a Thursday and 
was crucified on the following Friday, but we cannot with equal certainty 
decide on which day of the week He foretold His approaching death, be¬ 
cause various interpretations may be, and have been, assigned to the words: 
“after two days shall be the Pasch.” Many commentators think that the 
prophecy was uttered on Wednesday, the fourteenth of Nisan, 2 but it is far 
more probable that the expression “after two days” refers to two inter¬ 
vening days, and therefore we may follow the majority of scholars and 
assume that when Jesus spoke of the approaching Pasch and of the be¬ 
ginning Of His Passion He was on the Mount of Olives on the Tuesday 
evening, after uttering His prophecy about the end of the world. Lamy 
thinks it impossible to compress into Monday and Tuesday all the events, 

1 In commenting on this passage, the Venerable Bede remarks: 
Erubescant, qui putant, Salvatoretn mortem timuisse passionis: praescivit 
et tamen non declinavit insidias, nee terretur nee fugit. 

2 Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others. 




6 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

instructions and discussions recorded by the evangelists after our Ford s 
entry into Jerusalem, but his arguments are unconvincing, and Bynaeus has 
made quite contrary assertions. 

Deliberation of Christ’s enemies. Matthew says: “Then 
were gathered together the chief priests and ancients of the 
people into the court of the high-priest, who was called Cai- 
phas.” Mark and Luke do not speak explicitly of any assembly; 
they only say that the chief priests and scribes sought how they 
might lay hold on and kill Jesus. 

The time of this deliberation. The word then may mean that the assembly 
was convoked after Christ’s mention of the Pasch, not simultaneously with 
it. Those who think that rore implies the two things to have been simul¬ 
taneous, and believe Christ to have on Tuesday foretold the beginning of His 
Passion, are obliged to assign the gathering of the assembly to Tuesday 
evening. 1 By most commentators, however, it is assigned to Wednesday 
morning, and by a few 2 to Wednesday evening. The fact that the apostles 
instructed their converts to fast on Wednesday 3 supports the view that the 
meeting was held on that day, for St. Augustine tells us that this fast 
commemorated the decision of the assembly to put Jesus to death. 4 

A further reason for accepting this theory will be discussed in the section 
dealing with the betrayal of Christ by Judas. 

The important question arises whether we are to assume the 
assembly to have been a formal, official gathering of the whole 
Sanhedrin, or only a private meeting of a few members for the 
purpose of consultation. The following points derived from 
the account given by the evangelists may help to decide the 
matter. Mark and Luke speak of; chief priests and scribes as 
having been present, and elsewhere these two classes are men¬ 
tioned as constituting the Sanhedrin . 5 6 Matthew includes the 
ancients of the people, so that these three evangelists collect¬ 
ively mention all three classes of men composing the great 
Jewish Council. The subject to be discussed was so important 
that we should a priori be inclined to suppose a general meet¬ 
ing of the whole Sanhedrin to have been called. On the othe r 
hand Matthew tells us that the chief priests and ancients we re 

1 Thus Schegg: ^ rore is, however, as characteristic and as vague in 
Matthew as eiOvs is in Mark, (They need merely mean anon. — Ed.) 

a Lamy. 

8 Doctrina 12 Apostolorum, 8, I : vp-eu 8 ± j/rjereverare rerpdaa ical irdpaaKev^v. 

4 St August, (ep. 36, 30, al. 86, Migne, 33, 150) ; Cur autem quarta et 

sexta maxime jejunet ecclesia, ilia ratio reddi videtur, quod considerato 
evangelio ipsa quarta sabbati quam vulgo quartam feriam vocant, consilium 
reperiuntur ad occidendum dominum fecisse Judaei. 

6 Compare Matthew xx. 18, with xvi. 21. 



PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


7 

gathered together in the court of Caiphas, and consequently 
some maintain that an assembly, not held in the regular place, 
could have been merely private, and not official. 1 

The regular meeting place of the Sanhedrin was called Lish- 
kat hcigazith ( = aula ex cctesis lapidibus exstructcL) or simply 
Gazith ( = hewn, a word applied especially to ashlar). Its site 
can be determined with great probability. It was identical 
with the Council Chamber ( PovXevrrjpLov ) mentioned by Flavius 
Josephus, and stood on the southwestern portion of the Temple 
hill, close to the bridge leading from the Xystos 2 3 across the 
Tyropoeon, and not, as the later rabbinical tradition asserts, in 
the inner court of the Temple, although it was situated within 
the outer wall of the Temple. 

According to a rabbinical tradition, the Sanhedrin, forty years before the 
destruction of the Temple, had forsaken the Gazith, and for a time held its 
meetings in the tabernae or market, and afterwards in the high-priest’s 
house. Migravit Sanhedrin a conclavi Gazith ad Tabernas, a Tabernis in 
Hierosolymam .* Apparently, therefore, the ordinary official meetings of 
the Sanhedrin were held, during the life of Christ, in the high-priest’s 
palace. Schiirer thinks that, even if this tradition has no weight, there 
were still adequate grounds for choosing some extraordinary place for 
the assembly convoked with the purpose of discussing the line of action to 
be adopted against Jesus. If it was desirable to arrest Him secretly (and 
the prevalent feeling of the populace might well make the Sanhedrin avoid 
any publicity), this would hardly have been possible on the Temple hill, 
where pilgrims were already thronging to the festival. As the subsequent 
course of their proceedings shows, we need not consider the scrupulosity of 
the Sanhedrists, in their dealings with Jesus. 

According to the evangelists, the Sanhedrin did not meet in 
order to discuss whether Jesus should be put to death, but to 
decide how He might be apprehended and killed, for they had 
previously arrived at a definite conclusion regarding His death, 
and this conclusion motived all their subsequent action. Real¬ 
izing that in consequence of the miraculous raising of Lazarus 
many Jews believed in Jesus, the Council had declared that the 
welfare of the State required energetic proceedings to be taken 
against Him, as, unless His activity were checked, all the Jews 
would believe in Him, and the Romans would take possession of 


1 Among Catholics this view is adopted by Reischl, Risping, and 
Holzammer. 

2 The Xystos was a covered colonnade on the northeast point of Mount 
Sion, opposite the southwestern corner of the Temple hill. It was used 
for popular assemblies and gymnastic exercises. 

3 Bynaeus, I, 2, 17. 



8 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


the whole of Palestine, whereupon Caiphas reproved the San- 
hedrists for their hesitation to take the only proper and 
effectual means of securing the welfare of the nation, viz., to 
put Jesus to death. “You know nothing/’ he said, “neither 
do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man 
should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish 
not.” 1 Thus the man hig*hest in authority pronounced our 
Lord’s death sentence, and the Sanhedrists thenceforth had 
merely to consider the best means to execute the sentence. 

Decisions of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrists came to the 
conclusion that it was possible to seize Jesus during the festival, 
provided it were done craftily and without open violence, so that 
the populace should not hear of it; His execution, however, 
would have to be deferred until after the festival. Great 
caution had to be shown in the apprehension and execution of 
Jesus, since there was danger that the people, being favorable 
to Him, should oppose any such action. That the Sanhedrists 
were most anxious to avoid stirring up any popular demonstra¬ 
tion in favor of Jesus is plain from Mark’s words, and there 
was good reason for anxiety because at great festivals riots 
were of common occurrence in Jerusalem, owing to the vast 
concourse of people from all parts. Hence the Roman govern¬ 
ors had been obliged to take special measures to prevent 
disturbances. 2 On this occasion the Sanhedrists feared the 
pilgrims from Galilee in particular, who were full of love and 
gratitude toward Jesus. It is therefore a mistake to suppose 
that the Sanhedrists feared, not a public uproar, but only an 
interruption in the celebration of the festival. The motives 
which led to the decision of the Sanhedrists show that the 
sanctity of the festival, and especially of the opening day, con¬ 
stituted in their eyes no obstacle to the apprehension and 
execution of Jesus. 3 

1 John xi. 49, 50. 

2 Bynaeus, I, 2, 27. 

3 Jansenius: Itaque his verbis indicant, nisi timuissent populum, nihil 
veritos fuisse etiam in eundem diem Paschatis caedem ejus decernere, 
sicut et post . . . reipsa factum est. Cornelius a Lapide and others take 
the same view. 



PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


9 


II. The Anointing of Christ in Bethany 


Matthew xxvi. 6-13 

6. And when Jesus was in 
Bethania, in the house of 
Simon the leper, 

7. There came to him a 
woman having an alabaster- 
box of precious ointment, 
and poured it on his head 
as he was at table. 

_ 8. And the disciples seeing 
it, had indignation, saying: 
To what purpose is this 
waste? 

9. For this might have been 
sold for much, and given to 
the poor. 

10. And Jesus knowing it, 
said to them: Why do you 
trouble this woman? For 
she hath wrought a good 
work upon me. 

11. For the poor you have 
always with you: but me 
you have not always. 

12. For she in pouring this 
ointment upon my body, 
hath done it for my burial. 

13. Amen I say to you, 
wheresoever this gospel shall 
be preached in the whole 
world, that also which she 
hath done, shall be told for 
a memory of her. 


Mark xiv. 3-9 

3. And when he was in 
Bethania in the house of 
Simon the leper, and was 
at meat, there came a 
woman having an alabaster 
box of ointment of precious 
spikenard: and breaking the 
alabaster box she poured it 
out upon his head. 

4. Now there were some 
that had indignation within 
themselves, and said: Why 
was this waste of the oint¬ 
ment made? 

5. For this ointment might 
have been sold for more 
than three hundred pence, 
and given to the poor. And 
they murmured against her. 

6. But Jesus said: Let her 
alone, why do you molest 
her? She hath wrought a 
good work upon me. 

7. For the poor you have 
always with you; and when¬ 
soever you will, you may do 
them good; but me you have 
not always. 

8. What she had, she hath 
done; she is come before¬ 
hand to anoint my body for 
the burial. 

9. Amen I say to you, where¬ 
soever this gospel shall be 
preached in the whole world, 
that also which she hath 
done, shall be told for a 
memorial of her. 


John xii. 1-8 

1. Jesus therefore six days 
before the pasch came to 
Bethania, where Lazarus had 
been dead, whom Jesus 
raised to life. 

2. And they made him a 
supper there: and Martha 
served, but Lazarus was 
one of them that were at 
table with him. 

3. Mary therefore took a 
pound of ointment of right 
spikenard, of great price, 
and anointed the feet of 
Jesus, and wiped his feet 
with her hair: and the house 
was filled with the odour of 
the ointment. 

4. Then one of his disciples, 
Judas Iscariot, he that was 
about to betray him, said: 

5. Why was not this oint¬ 
ment sold for three hundred 
pence, and given to the poor? 

6. Now he said this, not 
because he cared for the 
poor; but because he was a 
thief, and having the purse, 
carried the things that were 
put therein. 

7. Jesus therefore said: Let 
her alone, that she may keep 
it against the day of my 
burial. 

8. For the poor you have 
always with you; but me 
you have not always. 


Biblical accounts of the Anointing. In the first two gospels the account 
of our Lord’s anointing in Bethany is placed between the narrative of the 
Sanhedrin’s decision with regard to Jesus and of His betrayal by Judas. 
Luke does not allude to any anointing corresponding to these circumstances, 
but records how at a much earlier period Jesus was anointed by a notorious 
woman in a city of Galilee, perhaps Capharnaum or Naim . 1 John, on the 
other hand, states that six days before the Pasch Jesus was anointed in 
Bethany by Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. Opinions have 
been and still are divided regarding the relation in which these four ac¬ 
counts stand to one another, and also regarding the woman who anointed 
our Lord. The following points may be accepted as very probable results of 
careful research: — The anointing recorded by Luke is not identical with that 
recorded by the other synoptic evangelists. The accounts given by Matthew 
and Mark are to be identified with that of John. Thus our Saviour, during 
His public ministry was anointed twice (not three times, nor only once) : 
the first time in Galilee, during the second year of His ministry; and the 


1 Luke vii. 36 - 50 . 





10 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


second time in Bethany near Jerusalem, shortly before His Passion. Re¬ 
garding the sinful woman, of whom Luke speaks, Catholic commentators 
now-a-days prove, or show by their arguments, that the question of identity 
of the “sinner” ('x/uapeuXos, Luke vii. 37), Mary Magdalen (Luke viii. 2), 
and Mary of Bethany is doubtful. Some add that perhaps the question 
will remain forever doubtful; others seem to wish that the question 
should not be considered closed, in order that the identity might be finally 
established. 

The identification of Mary Magdalen (Luke viii. 2) with the “ sinner ” 
(Luke vii. 37) is hopeless, for just the opposite could be proved by these 
texts. The identification of Mary of Bethany with the “ sinner ” of Luke 
vii. 37 on account of John xi. 2 has no solid probability, for grammatically 
the very indefiniteness and timelessness of the aorist participle v aXetyctaa 
favors and forces even according to the best commentators a reference to 
John xii. 1. 

John as Evangelist fulfills the prophetic word (Matthew xxvi. 13; Mark 
xiv. 9), “ Amen I say to you . . . which prophecy naturally therefore John 
himself omits. John gives the name of the anointing woman which the 
synoptics omit. Even a reference to John’s oral gospel-preaching may be 
indicated. 

Considering the history of the question the doubt in the East is clear; in 
the West up to Gregory the Great we find the same traditional wavering 
rather than a gradually strengthening tradition. With Gregory himself the 
identity is a private opinion which by the lessons in the Breviary became a 
common devotional opinion for subsequent centuries, as so much in the 
lives of the Saints. 

As soon as the scientific and critical discussion was opened by the treatise 
of Faber Stabulensis (1517-1519) the old doubt reappeared, never to be 
fully superseded. 

The characteristics of the same intense love for and fervent desire to be 
with the Saviour proves no identity since there is a love of active and 
contemplative life as in Martha and Mary. 

Harmonistic question. With regard to the position of the account of the 
anointing in the first two gospels, on the one hand, and the date given 
by John on the other, it is a debated point whether the story is placed in 
correct chronological order by the two synoptic writers or by John; in 
other words, whether Jesus was anointed in Bethany two days before His 
Passion, 1 i.e., on the Tuesday or Wednesday in Holy Week, or six days 
before, as St. John says. Most commentators accept the latter theory, 
which seems the more probable for the following reasons: John appears 
to have fixed precisely the date of Christ’s arrival in Bethany, in order at 
the same time to indicate the day on which He was anointed there. The 
fourth gospel is remarkable throughout for the chronological arrangement 
of its subject matter, and in it the account of the anointing precedes that 
of the solemn entry into Jerusalem. The two synoptic..gospels contain the 
account of the anointing, but without any indication of time, and the word 
“then,” with which the betrayal by Judas is introduced, cannot be regarded 
as proof that the two evangelists adhere strictly to a chronological sequence 
of events. The position of this account looks as if they inserted it there 
for a definite reason; they wished to reveal the immediate external reason 
for Judas’ action, and also to prove that Jesus had full knowledge of the 
suffering in store for Him, and looked forward to it with perfect composure. 


Bynaeus, I, 3, 5. 



PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS n 

The Day of the Feast and the Anointing. Six days before the 

Pasch, Jesus came to Bethany by way of Peraea and Jericho, 1 2 
and in all probability the feast was held on the evening of His 
arrival. The indication of time is not very clear, but most 
likely the six days mentioned by John are to be taken literally, 
and intervened between the day of our Lord’s coming to 
Bethany and the Pasch (the fifteenth of Nisan). If this is 
correct He reached Bethany on Friday, the eighth of Nisan, 
not on Saturday, the ninth; the Mosaic law required everyone 
to rest on the Sabbath, and it was a custom among the Jews 
to entertain their friends on Friday evenings. 

The derivation of Bethany is not certain. According to the Talmud 
“ Bethany ” is equal to the Aramaic “ Beth-Aineh ” or “ Beth-Hini,” which 
means “place of dates.” This is confirmed by the adjacent “ Bethphage,” 
which means “ house of figs,” and “ Mount of Olives.” Some trace it to the 
root “ Anah,” and it would yield the sense of “ place of affliction ” or “ place 
of afflicted one” — “poor-house.” The little town stood in a hollow on the 
eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, and, according to St. John,* was fif¬ 
teen furlongs, or about three quarters of an hour’s walk, from Jerusalem. 
The place is now known as El Azarijeh, and is a fairly large village, con¬ 
sisting of about forty houses inhabited by Moslems. A ruinous tower on 
the highest ground in the neighborhood is pointed out as marking the tomb 
of Lazarus, and about forty yards to the south was the house occupied by 
Mary and Martha. 

The host at the banquet. The synoptic writers tell us that 
the feast was given by a certain Simon, known as “ the leper,” 
because he had once suffered from leprosy, and in all proba¬ 
bility had been cured by Christ. There is no reason at all for 
thinking that “the leper” was a family name. 3 As to the 
identity of this Simon with Simon the Pharisee, mentioned by 
St. Luke, 4 no argument except the similarity of name can be 
adduced in support of it; in fact, circumstances point to the 
contrary. Martha, who had previously taken a prominent part 
in waiting upon Jesus, 5 displayed the same zeal on this occasion 
also, thus testifying to her love and gratitude toward her great 
Benefactor. No valid objection can be raised to her service in 
the house of Simon, who, if not a relative, was an intimate 
friend of her family. St. John’s words, “they made Him a 

1 Compare Matthew xix. i-xx. 34; Mark x. 1-52; Luke xviii. 31-xix. 28. 

2 xi. 18. 

8 Jansenius and others take this view. 

4 vii. 36, 40. 

6 Luke x. 38 sqq. 



12 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

supper,” perhaps justify the assumption that Simon prepared 
the banquet in his house in his name and in the name of the 
family of Lazarus conjointly. 1 Lazarus and the apostles were 
entertained at the feast as well as Jesus. 

Mary’s action during the feast. There are indications in 
the gospels 2 showing that distinguished guests were treated 
by the Jews with extraordinary marks of deference. On arrival 
they were welcomed by the host with a kiss; then their feet 
were washed, and their hair, beard, and sometimes even their 
feet were anointed with fragrant and precious oils. In the 
supper room at Bethany Jesus received an unusually tender 
manifestation of courtesy from Mary, the loving and grateful 
sister of Lazarus, who was one of the guests, and of Martha, 
who was waiting upon them. While our Lord was seated at 
table, she entered the room, carrying an alabaster vase that con¬ 
tained a pint of genuine and very costly spikenard. She opened 
the vase by breaking the long, narrow neck, the mouth of which 
was sealed, and then she poured the contents over our Lord’s 
head and feet, afterwards drying the latter with her own hair. 
All three evangelists emphasize the fact that the oil was very 
precious, and Mark and John describe it as “ right spikenard.” 
This oil was obtained from the thick, fragrant roots, stems, 
and especially the spikes, of the nard-grass, a plant indigenous 
to eastern and southern India. St. John alone states the 
quantity used,— a pound, or pint, and tells us that Judas es¬ 
timated its value at 300 pence or denarii, i.e., $50 or $60, while 
according to St. Mark it was even more costly. According to 
Pliny a pound of the best spikenard would cost over $80. 3 All 
three evangelists say that the vessel in which Mary carried the 
oil was an “ alabastron.” This suggests that it was made of the 
white or pale red alabaster which, according to Pliny, possessed 
better than any other substance the property of preserving 
perfumes. 4 5 In course of time, however, the name alabastron 
was used to designate any container for perfume, even those 
made of gold or silver, and consequently many commentators 
think that Mary’s vessel was of glass, since only such a 
one could be broken easily. 6 It is inaccurate to suppose th at 

2 Luke vii. 44 sqq. 

4 N. H. 13, 3. 

5 De la Haye and others. 


1 Jansenius. 

8 N. H. 13, 4- 



PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


13 


the vase was called an alabastron, not from the stone of which 
it was made, but from the fact of its having no handle. 1 

The disciples’ criticism. Mary’s loving action, far from 
meeting from the disciples with the approval that it deserved, 
actually aroused their indignation. The accounts given by the 
evangelists vary slightly, but can easily be reconciled. Matthew 
states in a general way that “the disciples . . . had indigna¬ 
tion,” Mark says that “some” had indignation, and John 
mentions Judas Iscariot. All the evangelists agree as to the 
cause of the indignation; the disciples regarded the anointing 
as wasteful, because the oil, if sold, would have brought more 
than $50 in our money, and this sum might have been devoted 
to the support of the poor. With regard to Judas, St. John 
remarks that his anxiety for the poor was hypocritical, and 
that his real motive was avarice, in which he had indulged by 
unjust inroads upon the money bestowed in alms for the sup¬ 
port of the disciples, and that he, as purse-bearer, was entitled 
to spend. 

St. John’s remark regarding the hypocrisy of Judas supplies the keynote 
enabling us to reconcile the accounts given by the three evangelists. St. 
Jerome, 2 * St. Augustine, 8 St. Bede, 4 and others think that Matthew and 
Mark speak “ sylleptically,” that is, ascribe to all what is strictly true only 
of one individual. They refer to an explanation that St. Augustine offers 
as follows: potest etiam intelligi, quod et alii discipuli aut senserint hoc, aut 
dixerint, aut eis Juda dicente persuasum sit, atque omnium voluntatem 
MatthaeUrS et Marcus etiam verbis expresserint. If this explanation be 
accepted, we may believe that Judas was the first to murmur, ostensibly 
because of his solicitude for the poor, but really owing to his avarice; and 
then some of the other disciples, being influenced by genuine love of the 
poor, followed his example. Most modern commentators adopt this view. 
The disciples failed to perceive the deeper significance of Mary’s action, 
and their murmurs at it are intelligible, for they had long associated with 
their humble Master, and knew both His desire to avoid all earthly honors 
and His intense love of the poor. 

The opinion expressed by Jesus. Our Lord defended Mary’s 
action, and termed it a good work, the outcome of her faith, 
love, and gratitude. The apostles could always, He said, dis¬ 
play their love and care of the poor, because they would 
continually have needy persons in their midst. He teaches us 


1 Suidas says: ayyos upov , /xi) %x ov Xct/ 3 ds. Menoch. gives the same 
derivation. 

2 Comm, in Matth. 

8 De cons, evangel. 2, 156. 

4 Comm, in Matth. 



14 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


that expenditure incurred for the honor and glory of God 
should not be called in question under the plea that the poor re¬ 
quire the money. Theophylact, commenting on this passage, 
writes: quando igitur quis offert Deo donum, ne averseris ilium, 
neque confringas alacritatem ejus, abducens ilium f ut pauperibus 
det, sed sine implere oblationem . 1 Those Christians who 
lavishly are spending of their wealth in honor of Christ and for 
the purpose of adding dignity to the worship of God, are un¬ 
likely to forget the poor, for they know the words: “ Amen, I 
say to you, so long as you did it to one of these my least 
brethren, you did it to me.” 2 Nor is the Church itself oblivious 
of these words and in times of extraordinary distress Church 
authorities have not hesitated to sell the most precious altar 
plate, in order to supply with the proceeds the needs of the poor. 

Jesus went on to disclose the deep significance of Mary’s 
good work, and to point out its close connection with His ap¬ 
proaching Passion and Death. Matthew and Mark are here in 
complete agreement, but the latter lays more stress upon the 
anticipatory character of the anointing. “ She is come before¬ 
hand to anoint my body for the burial.” Our Lord’s words can 
be understood in two ways. Most commentators think that the 
reference is to the prophetic and symbolical bearing of the 
anointing upon the death of Christ, but they do not assume 
that Mary, who anointed Jesus from motives of reverence and 
gratitude, connected her action consciously with her Master’s 
approaching Passion. 3 Some few exponents, however, suppose 
that Mary, having listened attentively to His words, was aware 
that He had frequently foretold His suffering, and gathered 
from what was taking place that the beginning of His Passion 
was at hand. Hence when she anointed Jesus in Bethany, she 
really intended to perform for her Master, while living, the 
service of love that she might be unable to render Him after 
death. 4 

St. John’s account presents certain difficulties, and in the 
Greek manuscripts there is evidence of various readings. The 
Recepta has adopted a text, the literal translation of which is: 

1 So also Maid., Jansenius, and Schanz. 

2 Matthew xxv. 40. 

3 Schanz and others take this view. 

4 Thus Jansenius and Bisping; I myself incline to this latter interpre¬ 
tation. 



PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


i5 


“Leave her alone; she has reserved it (i.e., the oil) for the day 
of my burial.” The idea is: The woman has saved the oil for 
use this day, which is called by anticipation the day of Christ’s 
burial; hence the anointing performed on this day signifies the 
embalming of His body. The text in Matthew and Mark ex¬ 
presses precisely the same idea; but there are both external and 
internal reasons for retaining in St. John’s gospel a reading 
which coincides with that of the Vulgate, and may be trans¬ 
lated : “ Leave her alone, that she may keep it for the day of my 
burial.” When compared with the text of the other two 
evangelists, this reading presents considerable difficulty, as is 
shown by various attempts to elucidate it. Some commen¬ 
tators think that in St. John’s gospel Christ speaks of the 
employment, on the day of His burial, of the spikenard left over 
on this occasion. On the other hand, we must bear in mind: 
(1) that, according to St. Mark, Mary had broken the ala¬ 
baster vessel, and had apparently used all the spikenard; (2) 
that Christ’s body was in all probability not embalmed at all, 
in the strict sense of the word, and certainly it was not em¬ 
balmed by women; (3) that, if this interpretation be accepted, 
Jesus did not answer the remark made by Judas, who protested 
against the waste of the spikenard on that particular occasion. 
Other commentators translate: “ Permit her to have kept it 
for the day of my burial.” If this method of translation were 
quite certainly permissible, the difficulty would be very simply 
removed by this interpretation. Others again regard the Greek 
word as meaning, not to store up ( conservare, servare), but to 
keep or observe ( observare ) —as in the expressions to keep the 
Sabbath, to keep the law — and so they render the passage: 
“ Leave her alone, that she may observe this for the day of my 
burial, i.e., that she may anoint me now, as if the day of my 
burial had already arrived.” 1 I suggest the following explana¬ 
tion: Jesus called the use to which the oil was being put (in 
contradistinction to the disposition proposed by Judas), a safe¬ 
keeping of it until the day of His actual burial, because then 
only would the full meaning and justification of Mary’s action 
be made manifest. I consider this interpretation satisfactory, 
but, if it be rejected, the latter of the two elucidations given 
above appears the more acceptable. Most of the earlier Catho- 


1 So Ewald and Schanz. 



i6 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


lie commentators avoid the difficulty presented in this passage 
by the Vulgate text, and remark, quite unjustifiably, that in the 
Greek text the perfect tense is used, instead of the present which 
occurs in the Vulgate. 

In conclusion our Saviour solemnly promised that wherever 
the gospel of man’s redemption through Christ should be 
preached in the whole world, Mary’s work of love should be re¬ 
membered and extolled. These words contain a prophecy that 
has been fulfilled in the Church. The tidings of salvation have 
reached the uttermost ends of the earth, and with them Mary’s 
praise resounds in every land. 


III. The Agreement Between Judas and the 
High Priests 


Matthew xxvi. 14-16 


l Mark xiv. 10, 11' 


Luke xxii. 3 - 4 , 6 


14. Then went one of the 
twelve, who was called Judas 
Iscariot, to the chief priests. 

15. And said to them: What 
will you give me, and I will 
deliver him unto you? But 
they appointed him thirty 
pieces of silver. 

16. And from thenceforth 
he sought opportunity to 
betray him. 


10. And Judas Iscariot, one 
of the twelve, went to the 
chief priests, to betray him 
to them. 

11. Who hearing it were 
glad; and they promised him 
they would give him money. 
And he sought how he might 
conveniently betray him. 


3. And satan entered into 
Judas who was surnamed 
Iscariot, one of the twelve. 

4. And he went, and dis¬ 
coursed with the chief priests 
and the magistrates, how he 
might betray him to them. 

6 . And he promised. And 
he sought opportunity to 
betray him in the absence 
of the multitude. 


The traitor’s personality. All three evangelists speak of 
Judas as “ one of the twelve,” i.e., an apostle. This agreement 
indicates a definite purpose. The traitor is represented as one 
who, having been intimately associated with Jesus, was in a 
position to betray Him; the horrible infamy of his action is thus 
suggested, and also the intense grief felt by Jesus at being 
betrayed by a man who for so long had belonged to the circle 
of His closest followers, and had received so many tokens of 
His fatherly love and care. 

The traitor was known as Judas Iscariot, 1 but his full name, 
according to the received Greek text of St. John’s gospel, 2 was 
Judas, son of Simon, the Iscariot. The name Iscariot is almost 
universally derived from that of the town Kerioth (Vulgate: 
Carioth) : Judas the man of Kerioth. 3 


1 Matthew xxvi. 14. a John xiii. 2. 

8 Chrys.: Ex urbe eum nominavit. Jerome: Vel a vico aut urbe in quo 
ortus est, vel ex tribu Isachar vocabulum sumpsit. . . . Another argument 





PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


17 

Kerioth was in the territory occupied by the tribe of Juda, 
and lay to the south of Hebron. It may probably be identified 
with the little town now called Kereitein, which is about fifteen 
miles south of Hebron, on the road to Wady Musa. 

The other apostles being all Galileans by birth, 1 * Judas was the only one 
of the twelve who belonged to the tribe of Juda. Many commentators doubt 
whether he was even born in Judea. We learn from St. John’s gospel that 
his father was known as “ the Iscariot,” 3 and in two passages, according 
to the most trustworthy Greek reading, the father Simon, and not the son 
Judas, is termed the Iscariot; the same thing occurs in the Vulgate, in a 
passage at variance with the recognized Greek text. 3 It has been suggested 
that Simon migrated from Kerioth to Galilee, and that his son, though 
born in Galilee, inherited the name Iscariot. It seems more probable, 
however, that father and son migrated at the same time, and that con¬ 
sequently both bore the same surname. 

Judas’ dealings with the high priests. The accounts given 
by the evangelists display the following peculiarities : those of 
Matthew and Luke supplement each other regarding the in¬ 
fluence brought to bear upon the traitor, and the motives that 
led him astray; on the subject of his dealings with the San- 
hedrists Matthew’s account is the more precise, although here, 
too, it is supplemented by Luke’s. There is nothing specifically 
particular in Mark’s version. The time when Judas actually 
proceeded to carry out his treacherous designs is indicated by 
Matthew alone, by means of the vague particle translated as 
“then,” “at that time,” referring bo the deliberation and 
decision of the Sanhedrin. 

“Then,” either while the Sanhedrin was engaged in dis¬ 
cussing the fate of Jesus, or after the close of this discussion — 
the word admits of either interpretation — Judas went to the 
high priests. The second interpretation is preferable, and so 
Wednesday in Holy Week may be regarded as the day when 
Judas betrayed our Lord. From the linguistic point of view 
this interpretation may be agreed to by those commentators also 
who believe that the Sanhedrists met on Tuesday. It gains addi¬ 
tional support from the fact that since apostolic times Wednes¬ 
day and Friday were observed as days of fasting, and St. Peter, 
Patriarch of Alexandria at the beginning of the fourth century, 

in support of this theory is derived from the fact that the Codex Sinaiti- 
cus and other MSS. and versions read diro Kapvurov. 

1 Acts ii. 7. 

3 John vi. 71 (Vulgate, 72) ; xiii. 26. 

* John xiii. 2. 



18 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

states explicitly that they were thus observed because Christ 
was betrayed on the former, and crucified on the latter day. 1 
Some commentators, who think that the account of Mary’s 
anointing of Jesus stands in St. John in its correct chronological 
sequence (whereas this is not the case in the synoptic gospels), 
assume that the particle rore indicates not the time, but the 
immediate external reason for the betrayal. 2 

The negotiations were conducted with the high priests and 
the rulers of the Temple. The latter were the chiefs of the 
watch, consisting of priests and Levites, who had to guard the 
sanctuary by turns, day and night. At the head of the rulers 
collectively was one of very high rank, who is mentioned in the 
New Testament as “the officer of the Temple.” Judas made 
his compact with the high priests and at the same time with 
the rulers of the Temple, who were not members of the San¬ 
hedrin. This circumstance seems to show that he did not 
immediately go to the council chamber, to communicate there 
directly with the Council officially assembled. Moreover the 
discussion for the purpose of deciding how to deal with Jesus 
was kept as secret as possible, and ordinary prudence would 
suggest the expediency of not admitting to the public assembly 
any person whose trustworthiness was not guaranteed. 3 In 
all probability Judas did not bargain with the Sanhedrin at any 
formal meeting, however secret, but spoke to individual mem¬ 
bers, beginning with the high priests, and the rulers of the 
Temple were invited to be present, in order that measures 
might be taken without delay to carry out the decisions just 
formed. 

Matthew alone says that Judas personally asked what his 
reward should be for the abominable act of treachery: “ What 
will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? ” i.e., “ How 
much will you pay me if I betray him?” According to Mark 
and Luke the Jews were glad to hear that Judas was willing to 
betray his Master, for thus help came to them from an unex¬ 
pected quarter, and from one in a position to assure with 

1 See article Judas in Catholic Encyclopedia and in Kirchen-Lexikon; 

Langen, 38. 

2 Jansenius: Videtur ( evangelista ) non tarn ternpus abitus tang ere, quam 
proximam occasionem proditionis: cum scil. Christi reprehensione irri- 
tatus et unguenti pretio esset frustratus. Corn, a Lap. connects the 
reference to time with that to cause. 

* Compare Bynaeus, I, 4, 8. 



PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


19 


absolute certainty the fulfillment of their long-cherished and 
ardent desires. The high priests, delighted at Judas’ proposal, 
promised him thirty silver shekels, about $20 in our money, if 
he would accomplish the deed. This sum was actually paid 
him, either before or immediately after the betrayal. 

Mark and Luke speak only of a promise to give Judas money, but they 
neither specify the exact sum, nor state whether the promise was kept. 
Matthew mentions thirty pieces of silver as the sum promised, and uses 
the verb earrjdav to designate the high priest’s action with regard to 
Judas. This may mean, either they appointed, promised (Vulgate: con- 
stituerunt ), or they weighed out, i.e., paid. In the next chapter (xxvii. 
9, 10) Matthew quotes Zach. xi. 12. Even if in that quotation 'icrridav 
must be understood as “they paid” (which is doubtful), it does not follow 
that we must take St. Matthew’s account to mean that the high priests 
paid Judas the reward of his treachery at their first interview with him. 
In accordance with his usual style of writing, Matthew here alludes only 
to the main fact, the payment of thirty pieces of silver, and makes no 
mention of attendant circumstances. If then we understand ^arrjdav to 
mean “ they paid,” the accounts given by the evangelists may be reconciled 
thus: Mark and Luke speak of the promise made to Judas at his first 
meeting with the high priests; Matthew of the subsequent payment. 

St. Paul explains how it was possible for Judas to sink so 
low as to betray his Master: “ The desire of money is the root 
of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith, 
and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.” 1 Two 
of the facts recorded by St. John allow us to catch sight of the 
psychological process undergone by Judas, before he became 
a traitor to Christ. A year before the Passion he had shown 
himself so antagonistic in mind and disposition that Jesus had 
called him a devil, 2 i.e., an “adversary,” “hostile” in his tend¬ 
ency. His behavior when Mary anointed our Lord in 
Bethany 3 revealed his avaricious and hypocritical character, 
and the question that he addressed to the high priest regarding 
the payment for his treachery is still further evidence of his 
avarice. Thus avarice and hypocrisy were the prominent fea¬ 
tures in the character of Judas, and they led to his down¬ 
fall. He had followed Jesus, believing Him to be the Messiah 
expected by the Jews, and hoping that in Him his, own 
mistaken anticipations regarding the Messiah would be real¬ 
ized. Judas differed essentially from the other apostles, in that 
his selfish craving for earthly riches prevented him almost 
entirely from appreciating our Lord’s teaching, which referred 


1 1 Tim. vi. 10. 


2 John vi. Ji, 72. 


3 John xii. I et seq. 



20 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


to the spiritual benefits of the Messianic Kingdom. When his 
expectations were disappointed, Judas sought compensation in 
the wrongful appropriation of the gifts brought by pious 
women, thus burdening his conscience with grievous sin. He 
failed to avail himself of the benefit of associating with the 
Messiah, in order to advance in knowledge and virtue, and the 
more he rejected this grace, the colder he grew toward his 
Master, and the more hold did his avarice gain upon him, so 
that finally he judged everything from the point of view of his 
own personal advantage. Judas illustrates the truth of the say¬ 
ing: corruptio optimi pessimct. Knowing that his Master 
perceived his true character, he could in His company and in 
that of the other apostles only play the hypocrite. 

But why did he not thenceforth abandon their society? His 
continued presence in their midst is psychologically quite ex¬ 
plicable. Judas was not a man of lofty ideals, but of a sensual 
and selfish nature, and such an one can endure even a thorough 
exposure of his vices, provided that there is some prospect of 
eventual profit. In this respect he does not stand alone in the 
history of the human race. He shrewdly calculated that he 
might still benefit to some extent by remaining with Jesus. Our 
Lord devoted the last year of His public ministry chiefly to 
the instruction of the apostles, and spoke to them of the Mes¬ 
sianic Kingdom that He was about to establish; of the high 
position that they were to occupy in it; and of the important 
duties that they would have to discharge. May not Judas have 
thought that, after all, his dreams of honors, riches, and power 
might still come true? He may have found confirmation for 
his mistaken opinions in the majestic personality of Christ, His 
sacred dignity and unyielding courage in face of the assaults 
of His enemies. These things did not suggest to Judas that he 
should forsake his Master, but rather that he should act his 
hypocritical part still more carefully. The time to desert Jesus 
and provide for his own safety had come when he realized, from 
our Lord’s predictions and from the course of events, that 
he had been thoroughly mistaken in his calculations. His 
line of action, as the great catastrophe approached, is an 
illustration of his self-seeking and grasping character too 
striking ever to be questioned or misinterpreted. By that 
time Judas cared for nothing but his own safety and welfare, 


PRELIMINARY INCIDENTS 


21 


and saw that it was not enough for him simply to forsake 
Jesus; his interests required that he should re-establish his 
reputation among the Jews, who hated him as a follower 
of Jesus, and, in order to accomplish this, he was willing to 
betray his Master. He believed that thus he could avert from 
himself all further suspicion on the part of the Sanhedrists, 
and secure for himself a safe position in the midst of his own 
people. This treacherous act, suggested by considerations for 
his own welfare, might at the same time be made the means 
of his acquiring a sum of money and thus gratifying his greed 
for wealth. 

A factor contributing to make Judas a traitor was, according 
to St. Luke, the instigation of Satan. The history of the human 
race shows plainly that the more a man gives himself up to the 
gratification of the senses, the more effectual and successful 
are the suggestions made him by the devil. The selfish, avari¬ 
cious, and hypocritical disposition of Judas supplied Satan with 
a very favorable basis for operations, and it is, moreover, ob¬ 
vious that the evil one would employ all his wiles in the case 
of a man so capable of injuring Jesus. St. Luke uses the word 
intrare, to enter into, which elsewhere denotes the taking pos¬ 
session of a man by an evil spirit, but commentators are almost 
unanimous in understanding the expression to indicate in this 
case merely the influence of the devil over the will of Judas. 1 
St. Luke says of Satan entering into Judas that this happened 
when Judas professed himself willing to betray his Master, 
while St. John 2 states that it was the case when Judas was 
about to perform his treacherous action; there is, however, no 
difficulty in reconciling the two statements. St. John refers to 
a more intense renewal of Satan’s influence, in consequence of 
which Judas became completely his servant, and at once pro¬ 
ceeded to betray Christ. 3 

That this is unquestionably the correct interpretation appears 
from the fact that St. John elsewhere 4 speaks of the devil as 
putting into the heart of Judas the idea of betraying Jesus. 

1 Jansenius r Intravit . . . non occupando corpus ejus, sed pessimam 
venditionis voluntatem inspirando. 

2 John xiii. 27. 

8 Corn, a Lap.: Satanas, qui prius in Judam ingressus est ad ’ proditionem 
machinandam, hie rursus in eum ingressus est ad earn perficiendam et in 
opus conferendam. 

4 John xiii. 2. 



22 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


When therefore Judas had agreed with the high priests to 
hand Jesus over to them in return for thirty pieces of silver, he 
watched for an opportunity of carrying out his design. Great 
caution was necessary, lest there should be an uproar among the 
people, either when Jesus was betrayed or when He was handed 
over to the civil authority. According to the Mosaic law the 
blood money paid for killing a slave was also thirty shekels, and 
probably this was the purchase price of a slave. Thus the Lord 
of life and death was by one of His own disciples valued at the 
same amount as a slave! 


SECTION II 


THE PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST 
SUPPER 

The following preliminary statements may be made as to the 
relation between the accounts given by the evangelists. St. 
Matthew’s description of the preparations for, and celebration 
of, the Paschal feast, and also of the institution of the Eucha¬ 
rist, is in complete agreement — apart from a few minor details 
— with that given by St. Mark. St. Luke’s account of the Last 
Supper is very brief, yet he presents us with a more vivid picture 
of it, inasmuch as he fixed more definitely the time when it 
began, and distinguishes clearly between the Paschal feast and 
the celebration of the Eucharist. All three synoptic writers 
mention our Lord’s statements regarding His betrayal by 
Judas, regarding His denial by Peter, and the scandal taken 
by the apostles. The chief differences in the order of events in 
the three gospels are: St. Matthew and St. Mark represent our 
Lord’s announcement of His approaching betrayal as having 
been made before the institution of the Eucharist; St. Luke 
places it after. St. Matthew and St. Mark place the prediction 
of Peter’s denial and of the scandal of the apostles after saying 
that our Lord and His apostles had left the supper room; St. 
Luke writes as though He was still in it when He mentioned 
these things. 

Peculiar to St. Luke’s gospel are statements of the following 
predictions: the strife for precedence among the apostles, our 
Lord’s prayer for Simon Peter, the persecution of the apostles. 
St. John’s account differs considerably from those of the 
synoptic evangelists. He does not allude to the celebration of 
the Eucharist; this omission is due to the fact that he had re¬ 
corded in great detail the promise of its institution. He has 
the following points in common with the other evangelists: 
the announcement of the betrayal, where he expands, and adds 
to, the other accounts; the announcement of Peter’s denial, 
which, however, is mentioned in more general terms, — there is 


H 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


no allusion to scandal taken by the rest of the apostles. On 
the other hand, St. John alone records things that took place 
during the Last Supper, thus adding completeness to the other 
accounts, and, when all are taken together, they present us 
with a clear picture of what occurred that evening. The 
following is a list of the incidents recorded only in the Fourth 
Gospel: 

I. The Washing of the Apostles’ Feet and the Words 
Uttered by Jesus During the Ceremony, xiii. 1-20. 

II. Other Words Addressed by Our Lord to the Apostles, 
viz.: 

1. The Promise of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, xiv. 

i-3 1 - 

2. The Parable of the Vine and its Fruit, xv. 1-17. 

3. The Hatred and Sinfulness of the World, xv. 18-27. 

4. Triumph of the Apostles over the Sinful World, xvi. 

1 - 33 * 

5. Prayer for the Disciples, xvii. 1-26. 


I. Time and Place of the Paschal Supper 


Matthew xxvi. 17-20 

17. And on the first day of 
the Azymes the disciples 
came to Jesus saying: Where 
wilt thou that we prepare 
for thee to eat the pasch? 
# 18. But Jesus said: Go ye 
into the city to a certain 
man, and say to him: The 
master saith, My time is 
near at hand, with thee I 
make the pasch with my 
disciples. 

19. And the disciples did 
as Jesus appointed to them, 
and they prepared the pasch. 
^ 20. But when it was even¬ 
ing he sat down with his 
twelve disciples. 


Mark xiv. 12-17 

12. Now on the first day of 
the unleavened bread when 
they sacrificed the pasch, 
the disciples say to him: 
Whither wilt thou that we 
go, and prepare for thee to 
eat the pasch? 

13. And he sendeth two of 
his disciples, and saith to 
them: Go ye into the city; 
and there shall meet you a 
man carrying a pitcher of 
water, follow him: 

14. And whithersoever he 
shall go in, say to the master 
of the house, The master 
saith, Where is my refectory, 
where I may eat the pasch 
with my disciples? 

15. And he will shew you a 
large dining-room furnished; 
and there prepare ye for us. 

16. And his disciples went 
their way; and came into the 
city; and they found as he 
had told them, and they pre¬ 
pared the pasch. 

17. And when evening was 
come, he cometh with the 
twelve. 


Luke xxii. 7-14 

7. The day of the un¬ 
leavened bread came, on 
which it was necessary that 
the pasch should be killed. 

8 . And he sent Peter and 
John, saying: Go and pre¬ 
pare for us the pasch, that 
we may eat. 

9. But they said: where 
wilt thou that we prepare? 

10 . And he said to them: 
Behold, as you go into the 
city, there shall meet you a 
man carrying a pitcher of 
water: follow him into the 
house where he entereth in. 

11. And you shall say to 
the good man of the house: 
The master saith to thee: 
Where is the guest-chamber, 
where I may eat the pasch 
with my disciples? 

12 . And he will shew you a 
large dining-room furnished: 
and there prepare. 

13. And they going, found 
as he said to them, and made 
ready the pasch. 

14. And when the hour was 
come he sat down and the 
twelve apostles with him. 





PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 25 

The day on which the order was given to make preparations 
for the Pasch. According to St. Matthew the order was given 
on the first day of the azymes, or week of unleavened bread. 
During the whole octave of the Paschal festival the Jews were 
required by the law of God 1 to eat unleavened bread. The 15th 
of Nisan, beginning the evening of the 14th, was therefore the 
first day of unleavened bread, and this day is termed in the 
Mosaic Law the feast, or solemnity, of unleavened bread. 
“And the fifteenth day of the same month is the solemnity of 
the unleavened bread of the Lord.” 2 From the time of the 
second Temple, however, the 14th day of Nisan was reckoned 
as the first day of unleavened bread, because on that day at 
noon everything leavened was burnt, and custom permitted the 
eating of none but unleavened bread. In Galilee people re¬ 
frained from servile work during the whole day, and in Judea 
they did so at least from noon onwards. In the afternoon of 
the 14th of Nisan the Paschal lamb was slain, and all prepara¬ 
tions were made for keeping the festival.®* 

This custom accounts for the fact that Flavius Josephus 
speaks in one place of seven 4 and in another of eight 5 days 
of unleavened bread. 

A cogent argument in support of the theory that the day 
mentioned by the evangelists as the first of the unleavened 
bread was the 14th and not the 15th of Nisan, is derived from 
the fact that the same day is specified as that on which the 
Jews slew, and were ordered to slay, the Paschal lamb. As will 
be seen further on, the lambs were killed in the Temple in the 
course of the 14th of Nisan, generally at about three o’clock in 
the afternoon, and according to the Mishna, were required to be 
taken to the various houses and roasted before nightfall. 6 * 
The Paschal lamb was therefore already killed when that part 
of the 14th of Nisan began, which was, according to Jewish 
liturgical terminology, the commencement of the 15th day. 
Hence it is quite certain that it was on the 14th of Nisan that 
our Saviour gave His instructions for the preparation of th e 
Paschal feas t. 


1 Exod. xii. 5 seqq. 2 Levit. xxiii. 6. 8 Bynaeus, I, 6, 2. ^ 

8 Ant. iii. 5, 10. , 6 Ant. 11 . 15, 1. 

6 Mishna, Pesachim, 5, 10: si tenebrae obonrentur exibant et assaban 

pascha suunt. 



26 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


The time of day when the instructions were given. The 

following considerations suggest that the instructions were 
given early in the morning on the 14th of Nisan: 1. It would 
take some time to find a suitable place for the feast and to 
procure everything necessary for it. 2. The presence of the 
water-carrier, mentioned by Mark and Luke, indicates an early 
hour, for in the East it was the custom to fetch the needful 
supply of water either in the evening or in the morning, when 
it was cool. 3. St. Luke’s expression, “When the day of the 
unleavened bread came,” seems to favor this theory. 

The carrying out of the instructions. Matthew and Mark 
speak as though the proposal to prepare the Paschal feast 
proceeded from the disciples; according to Luke, however, 
Jesus Himself commissioned Peter and John to make prepara¬ 
tions. The statements may be reconciled thus: First of all, 
the apostles asked where the Pasch was to be eaten; Jesus 
answered by giving instructions to the two apostles, who in 
their turn asked where the preparations were to be made. They 
were then sent to the city to discover the appointed house and 
to make all arrangements necessary for celebrating the festival. 
Mark and Luke state emphatically that our Saviour did not 
mention the householder by name, but told the apostles how 
they might recognize the house and its occupant. It is of course 
true that Jerusalem was crowded during the Pasch, and that 
in the early morning people thronged to the wells to draw 
water, but the authenticity of the detail recorded by Mark and 
Luke can be questioned only by those who deny our Lord’s 
omniscience and dispute God’s guidance of events. St. 
Matthew says that Christ told the apostles to go into the city 
“ to a certain man.” These words are used because the evan¬ 
gelist omits to record the means whereby the unnamed house¬ 
holder was to be recognized. The reason why Jesus refrained 
from mentioning the man’s name, and gave only apparently 
vague indications of his identity, is stated in general terms by 
Maldonatus, who says: Christum propterea hominem non nom- 
inasse, ut melius rebus, quam nomine describeret, eaque rati - 
one clarius divinitatem suam ostenderet . . . cum dicit: et oc- 
curret . . . declarat, se futurum praescire et omnia esse divino 
consilio ad mortem suam quodammodo praeparata. Many 
commentators think that the householder’s name was not 


PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


2 7 


mentioned in order to prevent Judas from ascertaining too soon 
the place where the Pasch was to be eaten, and to ensure the 
uninterrupted celebration of the festival. 

Jews from the country and from abroad received hospitality in Jerusalem 
during the Paschal season, and householders were in the habit of offering 
rooms gratis to those who wished to eat the Pasch. In the way of compen¬ 
sation for this courtesy the skin of the Paschal lamb and the peace offerings 
were made over to the host. With reference to the man at whose house Jesus 
ate the Last Supper, the following indications may be gathered from the 
gospels. He was probably well-to-do, because he placed a large room at the 
disposal of our Lord and His friends. He was undoubtedly one of Christ’s 
followers, because he complied at once with the request, as soon as he heard 
the words, “ the Master saith.” There is no difficulty here, for we know 
from St. John’s gospel 1 that Jesus had many disciples in Jerusalem. From 
the wording of the message that the two apostles had to deliver, we may 
infer that Jesus had previously made arrangements with this man for cele¬ 
brating the Pasch at his house. What was his name? We cannot agree 
with Nicephorus 8 in thinking that it was St. John the apostle who, according 
to tradition, owned a house on Mount Sion, for St. John was one of the 
two sent to find out this man. St. Jerome 8 suggests that the Upper Room 
may have been in the house of Mary, mother of John Mark, where Chris¬ 
tians subsequently used to assemble for the worship of God. 3 4 Others think 
that the householder was Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea. We shall 
return to this topic later on. 

The beginning of the Paschal feast. According to the 
synoptic gospels the feast was held on the evening of the day 
on which orders were given for its preparation. Matthew and 
Mark say that it began in the evening; Luke says, “when 
the hour was come.” The Mosaic Law required the Pasch to 
be eaten during the evening of the 14th of Nisan. If, in con¬ 
formity with Jewish custom, the lamb was roasted at nightfall, 
the feast would begin at 6 or 7 o’clock in the evening. As it 
was on the first day of unleavened bread when Jesus celebrated 
the Pasch, we can assign dates to the following episodes in 
His Passion: Jesus ate the Last Supper with His disciples on 
the 14th of Nisan; He was crucified on the 15th; He lay in 
the tomb during the 16th, and rose again on the morning 
of the 17th. These things took place on Thursday, Friday, 
Saturday, and Sunday, if we reckon by the days of the week. 

The sacrificial character of the Lord’s Supper. This is indi¬ 
cated by the fact that the supper was held on the day appointed 
by law, and also by the evangelist’s explicit statements. The 


1 vii. 13; xi. 48. 
3 Ep. 16. 


3 H. E. I, 28. 

4 Acts xii. 12. 




28 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


apostles asked their Master where they were to prepare the 
Pasch: 1 the meal that they prepared is described as the Pasch, 2 
and was so called by our Lord Himself. 3 Nothing but the 
difficulty of harmonizing the various accounts has led some 
commentators to suppose, contrary to the positive testimony 
of the synoptic evangelists, that the supper was an ordinary 
meal, and not the solemn celebration of the Jewish Pasch, 
which was a sacrificial banquet. 

According to the law, the Jews ate the Paschal lamb on the 
evening of the 14th of Nisan, and kept the 15th as a great 
festival. It is a debated question, to which very different 
answers have been given, whether Jesus celebrated the Pasch 
on the same day as the Jews in general, and was crucified on 
a great Jewish festival, or whether for some unknown reason 
in that particular year both solemnities were postponed for a 
day, so that the Jews ate the Paschal lamb on the 15th of 
Nisan (our Good Friday) and celebrated their festival on the 
16th (our Holy Saturday). We cannot assume that Jesus 
anticipated the celebration of the Pasch, because it is impossible 
to show that the 13th of Nisan could be called the first day of 
unleavened bread. 

The law required the Pasch to be celebrated on the evening 
of the 14th of Nisan. As has already been shown, that was the 
first day of unleavened bread, and, according to the synoptic 
gospels, it was on that day, too, that the supper was prepared 
by the disciples and eaten by them in the company of Jesus. 
Any doubt regarding the identification of the first day of un¬ 
leavened bread with the 14th of Nisan, the day appointed by the 
law for celebrating the Pasch, seems precluded by the expres¬ 
sions used by Mark and Luke: “ the first day of the unleavened 
bread when they sacrificed the Pasch,” “the day of the un¬ 
leavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the Pasch 
should be killed.” The advocates of the anticipation hypothesis 
think that Jesus ate the Pasch a day earlier than the Jews, doing 
so on the 13th of Nisan, and they assume that this day, or at 
least the evening of it, was the first day of the unleavened 
bread. It is important to notice, however, that there is no his- 

1 Matthew xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7. 

* Matthew xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 13. 

8 Luke xxii. 15. 



PASCHAL k FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 29 

torical justification at all for the first part of this hypothesis, 
and the second part has no weight, because the evangelists 
speak of the morning, not the evening, of the day on which 
Jesus ate the Pasch, as the first day of unleavened bread. 

The sacrificial mode of killing the Paschal lambs supports 
the theory that Jesus kept the feast on the legally appointed 
day, together with all the Jews. The lambs had to be killed 
at a fixed time in the Temple, as the place which the Lord 
had chosen that His name might dwell there. 1 Bynaeus argues 
that Jesus ate a Paschal lamb slain in the Temple at the regular 
time, because the priests would certainly not have allowed 
one to be killed at any other hour. Haneberg thinks it question¬ 
able whether it was not under certain conditions permissible 
to kill the Paschal lamb in a private house. He is inclined to 
think that it must have been allowed, because of the enormous 
number of lambs required to supply half a million people, but he 
is forced to acknowledge his inability to refer to any ancient 
writer in support of this assumption. 

A further reason for believing our Lord to have kept the 
Pasch at the same time as the Jews may be discovered in St. 
Luke’s account of the disciples at Emmaus. 2 On the day of the 
Resurrection they walked from Jerusalem to Emmaus, a dis¬ 
tance of 7 J 4 miles, and reached Emmaus as twilight was 
setting in; so they must have left Jerusalem between 2 and 3 
o’clock in the afternoon. If the Jews had kept the Pasch a day 
later than Jesus, the Resurrection would have taken place on 
the second day of the festival, and that day was, like the great 
day of atonement, observed as a Sabbath, so that the two 
disciples could not, in consequence of rabbinical restrictions 
regarding a Sabbath day’s journey, have started on so long a 
walk early in the afternoon. 

Since, then, the synoptic accounts of the date of the Last 
Supper can be understood only of the 14th of Nisan, it seems 
impossible to assume that Jesus anticipated the usual celebra¬ 
tion of the festival. The only question to be decided is, whether 
the Jews had postponed it to the 15th and 16th of Nisan. The 
arguments derived from the New Testament in support of the 
theory of postponement may be divided into two classes: 
1. The accounts of the Passion, as given by the evangelists, 


1 Deut. xvi. 6. 


1 Luke xxiv. 13 sqq. 



30 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


contain no suggestion that our Lord was put to death on a festi¬ 
val, but their allusions to the proceedings against Jesus show 
plainly that He suffered on an ordinary working-day; 2. Sev¬ 
eral passages in St. John’s gospel seem to indicate that the first 
day of the Jewish Pasch followed our Lord’s Crucifixion. 
These difficulties must be examined and criticized separately. 

The arguments of the first class, which seem to support the theory that 
the Jews postponed the celebration of the festival, may be stated as fol¬ 
lows : The day of our Lord’s Passion cannot have coincided with the 
first day of the Pasch, because in that case Jesus would have been forbidden 
to walk to the Mount of Olives, and His arrest by armed men, His trial and 
execution, would all have been prohibited by the law regulating the ob¬ 
servance of the festival. In answer to these arguments it is pointed out 
very aptly that the Jews regarded all their proceedings against Jesus as 
actions performed in God’s service, not as secular business, and conse¬ 
quently they would not constitute any breach of discipline. Our Lord had 
foretold 1 that the insane fury of the Jews would lead them to think that 
by killing His disciples they were doing service to God. If His enemies 
were already actuated by this thought, the fulfillment of His prophecy began 
on the day of His Passion. This hypothesis appears the more probable if we 
remember that frequently, during our Lord’s public ministry, regard for the 
Sabbath failed to restrain the Jews from acts of violence against Him. It 
was on a Sabbath that the Pharisees and Herodians took counsel to destroy 
Him; 3 on a Sabbath they dragged Him out of Nazareth, and tried to throw 
Him over the brow of the hill, 3 and on the feast of the dedication of the 
Temple 4 they tried to ensnare Him. The manner in which the Sanhedrin 
decided upon the arrest and execution of Christ shows that the sanctity of 
the festival would have been no obstacle to the carrying out of the decision 
to put Him to death. 5 6 These considerations seem to suggest that it is un¬ 
safe to lay too much stress upon arguments based on the sacred character 
of the first day of the Pasch. Such arguments are the following. 

The first is: If Jesus kept the Pasch on the 14th of Nisan, He would 
not, according to the Law,® have been at liberty to leave the supper room 
immediately after supper, and go to the Mount of Olives, but He would 
have had to remain there until the morning. It may, however, be pointed 
out that if the legal prohibition to leave the supper room before morning 
was still in force, it would have been equally binding had Jesus eaten the 
Paschal feast on the preceding day. But it is inaccurate to assume that this 
rule held good after the exodus from Egypt; certain ceremonies prescribed 
for the first Pasch, celebrated in Egypt, were to be observed only on that occa¬ 
sion ; such were the smearing of the doorposts with the blood of the lamb, 
eating its flesh in a state of readiness for departure, and remaining within 
the house until the following morning. 7 It was quite legitimate for Jesus to 
go to Gethsemani after supper, for, according to the law, the Paschal supper 
could even be eaten in Bethphage, which was still further away from Jeru- 


1 John xvi. 2. 2 Compare Mark iii. 6 with iii. 1. 

3 Luke iv. 14-30. 4 John x. 22. 

6 Compare.Matthew xxvi. 4 seqq., and the explanation on page 8. 

8 Exod. xii. 22. 7 Bynaeus, II, 1, 9. 




PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


3i 


salem. 1 2 3 It has been stated that no action on the part of armed men was 
permissible during the night of the 14th of Nisan, because the first day of 
the festival had already begun, and the Jews were forbidden to carry arms 
on the Sabbath and on feast days. It is true that servile work could not be 
done on the first day of the Pasch, for the law is explicit on that point.* 
“ Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread; the first day shall be most 
solemn unto you and holy; you shall do no servile work therein ”; but the 
same law which forbade the preparation of food on the Sabbath 8 permitted 
it on the Paschal festival. 4 * * 7 Hence the rule was laid down that the observ¬ 
ance of a festival was alike to that of the Sabbath, with the only exception 
that on the former food might lawfully be prepared, and on the Sabbath it 
might not. Non est differentia inter diem festum et diem Sabbati, nisi in 
edulibus tantum. s As early a writer as Maimonides remarks, however, 
that this was the view taken by the stricter school of Shammai, whereas the 
laxer followers of Hillel went much further: haec est opinio scholae 
Schammai, sed opinio scholae Hillelis est, quod multae dantur res citra 
esum, quae licidae sunt die festo et vetitae die Sabbati. When we consider 
that opinions were divided among the rabbis as to the lawfulness of carry¬ 
ing water on the Sabbath, one school declaring it to be altogether unlawful, 
another pronouncing it merely unseemly; when we remember that in their 
wars with the Romans the Jews often had recourse to offensive as well as 
defensive warfare 8 on the Sabbath: and when, finally, we take into consid¬ 
eration the fact that the Jews regarded the arrest of Jesus, who was said to 
despise the law of Moses, as a good work, pleasing in God’s sight, we can¬ 
not be surprised that they went out armed on the night of the 14th of Nisan. 

A further argument is this: According to the section in the Mishna 
known as Bezah or Yom tob, and dealing with the observance of festivals, 
the courts of justice were closed both on the Sabbath and on festivals.* 
Hence Jesus could not have kept the Pasch on the 14th of Nisan, when the 
Jews kept it, because that would mean that legal proceedings had been taken 
against Him on the first day of the festival. The same objection can, 
however, be raised if it be assumed that Jesus celebrated His Pasch one day 
earlier; for, as the Jewish regulations regarding judicial proceedings re¬ 
quired a death sentence to be pronounced a whole day after the trial, such 
cases could not be dealt with on the eve of a Sabbath or of a festival. 8 

On the other hand, it should be noted that in the treatise on the sancti¬ 
fication of the Sabbath, 9 there is contained a list of 39 occupations forbidden 
on that day, but trying prisoners is not one of them. Moreover, although 
in the Bezah, as already said, judicial procedure is mentioned as forbidden, 
Maimonides states the reason for this prohibition to be that a sentence 
could not be recorded in writing on the Sabbath. It seems, therefore, that 
to take judicial action was not forbidden even on the Sabbath or on festi- 

1 Tract, de minist. templi Hieros., c. xii. On the latter point Lightfoot 
quotes the following passage from Tosaphta, Tractatus Pesachim: Ubi 
comederunt pascha in Aegypto, ibi etiam pernoctare debuerunt, sed posterio- 
ribus temporibus comedebant id in uno loco et pernoctabant in alio. 

2 Levit. xxiii. 6, 7. 

3 Exod. xxxv. 2, 3. 

4 Exod. xii. 16. 

3 Mishna, Tract. Bezah, v. 2. 

8 Flav. Jos. B. J. II. 17, 10; 19, 2. 

7 Bezah, v. 2. 

8 Sanhedrin, IV, I. 

9 Schabbat, VII, 2. 



32 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


vals. That such action was actually taken somewhat frequently we may 
infer from the fact that, according to the Talmud, there was a special place 
where the Sanhedrin met on these days: in sabbatis et in diebus festis con- 
sidebant in antemurali 1 (a building situated between the outer and the inner 
courts of the Temple). 

On the first day, it is argued, no preparations could be made for an exe¬ 
cution, nor could an execution have taken place; but we must bear in mind 
that the executioners were Roman soldiers, free from any obligation to 
observe the Jewish law. According to the Talmud it was not only permis¬ 
sible, but under certain circumstances advisable, to carry out a death sen¬ 
tence on a festival, in cases where a public execution might have a deter¬ 
rent effect upon the people assembled for the feast. This rule was based 
upon the following passage in the law: “ He that will be proud, and refuse 
to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the 
Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge; that man shall die, and thou 
shalt take away the evil from Israel. And all the people hearing it shall 
fear, that no one afterwards swell with pride. ,, a Regarding the action 
taken against such an offender. Rabbi Akiba said: non occiditur a judici - 
bus civitatis sua ; non a Synedrio, quod Jabne est, sed ad summum senatum 
Hierosolymam deducitur atque istic in custodia asservatur usque ad festum 
et in festo interficitur ; quia dicitur: et totus populus audiet et timebunt, 
neque amplius praefracte agent? Wiinsche * 4 thinks that the rule just 
quoted is not applicable to the case of our Lord, because it is limited to that 
of an elder rebelling against the decision of the Council, and not recognized 
as universal. This remark is, however, partly inaccurate, and partly not to 
the point. In order to explain a fact recorded in the Bible, it cannot do 
any good to quote a general regulation laid down by Jewish doctors; it is 
more important to know that famous Jewish rabbis considered it permissible 
in certain cases to let a death sentence be carried out on a festival, and they 
justified their opinion on this subject by reference to the law of Moses. 

There are other arguments, derived from the synoptic gospels, against 
the theory that Jesus celebrated the Pasch at the same time as the Jews; 
these will be discussed further on. Among other things it is said that Simon 
of Cyrene was apparently returning from work in the fields when Jesus was 
led out to the place of crucifixion, and also that, after our Lord’s burial, the 
women purchased spices and perfumes on the same day. 

Moreover, some positive statements occur in the fourth gospel which 
seem to show that the Jews ate their Paschal supper a day later, so that in 
the year of the Crucifixion the first day of the Pasch coincided with the 
Sabbath. In order to support this theory we must refer to what is called 
the transference hypothesis, which was propounded long ago by Maldona- 
tus, 8 and has been revived recently by Knabenbauer and others. According 
to this hypothesis, in the year of the Crucifixion, although the 15th of Nisan 
fell on a Friday, the Jews did not observe that day but the following one as 
the first day of the Pasch, in order to prevent the festival and the Sabbath 
from falling on two consecutive days. This transference would necessitate 
a corresponding postponement of the Paschal supper. Jesus is said to have 
disregarded the alteration made by the Jews in the date of the festival, and 
celebrated the Pasch on the day appointed by the law. At first sight this 
theory appears attractive and likely to remove various difficulties. The fol- 


1 Sanhedrin, c. 10. J Deut. xvii. 12, 13. * Sanhedrin, x. 4. 

4 Neue Beitrage zu Matth. xxvi. 5. • Comm, in Matth. xxvi. 2. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 33 


lowing passages in the fourth gospel are those believed to indicate a change 
made by the Jews in the date of the Pasch. St. John is understood to say 
plainly that Jesus partook of the Paschal supper “before the festival day 
of the pasch,” 1 also that the Jews avoided the Praetorium on the day of 
our Lord’s Passion, “ that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat 
the pasch.” * 3 These passages make it quite clear that at the time of Christ’s 
condemnation and crucifixion the Jews had not yet eaten their Paschal sup¬ 
per. Again, St. John says that our Lord died on “the parasceve [i.e., the 
“ preparation ”] of the Pasch,” * and this expression can only signify that on 
the Friday the Jews were making all preparations for the festival that they 
were about to celebrate on the following day, which was a Sabbath. Fur¬ 
ther confirmation of this theory seems to be derived from St. John’s descrip¬ 
tion of that day as “ a great sabbath.” 4 * It is assumed that the Sabbath after 
our Lord’s death and burial could be termed great only if it coincided with 
the Paschal Sabbath, i.e., the first day of the Paschal festival. As all the 
passages quoted above will, with the exception of the first, be discussed and 
explained in the course of the history of the Passion, we may here restrict 
ourselves to a consideration of the first point. 

In the passage in question, the words “before the festival day of the 
Pasch ” belong, grammatically, to the token of love which Jesus, having 
reached the end of His life, gave His disciples when He washed their feet. 8 
The words are an indication of the time when all the events connected with 
that washing took place. Now commentators are almost unanimous in iden¬ 
tifying the supper, mentioned by St. John, at which our Lord washed the 
apostles’ feet, with the Paschal supper described in the synoptic gospels. It 
was not an ordinary meal eaten the day before the Pasch celebrated by 
Christ.® St. John therefore asserts that our Lord’s Pasch, which according 
to the synoptic evangelists was celebrated on the evening of the 14th of 
Nisan, was eaten before the festival day of the Pasch. This statement is 
regarded as proving that Jesus and the Jews did not keep the Pasch at the 
same time, but that either our Lord anticipated the date or the Jews post¬ 
poned their celebration; in other words, either Jesus kept the Pasch on the 
13th and the Jews on the 14th, or Jesus on the 14th and the Jews on the 15th 
of Nisan. This difficulty in St. John’s account has been explained in many 
different ways. Patrizi 1 and others think that the evangelist was writing 
primarily for Christian converts from Paganism, who were accustomed to 
the Greek and Roman reckoning of time, in which the evening formed part 
of the same and not of the following day. They believe that in the fourth 
gospel it is possible to find other indications showing that St. John reckoned 
days and hours according to the Roman, not the Jewish, fashion. There is, 
however, no need to insist upon this rather doubtful point, because St. John’s 
statement of time, if regarded as an ordinary Biblical expression, can easily 
be reconciled with those of the synoptic writers. It is important to notice 
that St. John says, not “before the Pasch,” but “before the festival day of 
the Pasch.” As far as I have been able to ascertain, the younger Jansenius 8 
was the first to draw attention to this fact, and to the distinction, existing 
even in the Old Testament, between the day of the Pasch and the festival. 
He writes: non dicit: ante pascha, nam haec ablutio pedum facta est 


1 John xiii. I. 

* John xix. 14. 

‘ John xiii. 4 seqq. 

7 De Evang. iii. 50, 23. 


1 John xviii. 28. 

4 John xix. 31. 

4 Thus Hugo Grotius, Bynaeus, and others. 

* Comm, in Joannem, xiii. 1. 



34 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


paschate jam inchoato, . . . sed dicit: ante diem festum paschae, sen ante 
lucem festivitatis paschalis. Many modern commentators 1 follow Jansenius 
and refer to the same passages in support of this view. We read in 
Leviticus: 2 “ The first month, the fourteenth day of the month at evening, 
is the phase of the Lord; and the fifteenth day of the same month is the 
solemnity of the unleavened bread.” And in Numbers: 3 “In the first 
month, on the fourteenth day of the month, shall be the phase of the Lord, 
and on the fifteenth day the solemn feast.” These two passages show that 
in the Old Testament a distinction was made between the evening of the 
14th of Nisan, when the Pasch was celebrated, and the 15th; the latter day 
alone being called a “solemnity” or “solemn feast.” We must notice fur¬ 
ther that in both places the Septuagint describes the 15th of Nisan as eop-nj, 
and St. John uses the same word in the passage under discussion. If St. 
John adhered to this distinction between the 14th and 15th of Nisan, he 
could certainly say that the supper took place before the festival day of the 
Pasch, i.e., before the 15th of Nisan. It only remains to prove that St. John 
really made this permissible distinction between the Pasch and the festival, 
and that his expression “ before the festival day of the Pasch ” may really 
be understood of the evening before the 15th of Nisan. The proof may be 
found in St. John’s own gospel. When Judas suddenly left the Supper 
Room, the apostles thought that he had gone to execute a commission for 
his Master, and to make purchases “for the festival day” (eoprij), or to 
give something to the poor. 4 They could not have supposed that he was 
at night making purchases for the festival, unless that festival began the 
next morning, so that only the night was left for necessary preparations. 
Some commentators have, it is true, tried to deduce an opposite conclusion 
from the disciples’ assumption. Because the evening of the 14th of Nisan 
was part of the first day of the festival, it must, they say, have been too 
holy for purchases, such as Judas would have made, to be allowed on it. 
On the other hand, as we have already seen, the observance of the Sabbath 
day was much stricter than that of a festival, and the eve of a feast day 
was regarded as less sacred than the day itself. 

We have already alluded briefly to various hypotheses, formed with a 
view to solving the difficulties in the gospel accounts of our Lord’s Passion, 
regarding the date of His Paschal supper. These hypotheses may be ar¬ 
ranged as follows: 

1. The so-called transference hypothesis. According to this the 15th of 
Nisan, the first day of the Paschal festival, fell in the year of the Cruci¬ 
fixion on a Friday, but was transferred by the Jews to the following day, 
the 16th of Nisan, and the Paschal supper was consequently not eaten until 
the evening of the 15th. This transference is assumed to have taken place 
in order that the first day of the festival and the Sabbath might not fall on 
two consecutive days. Jesus and His disciples, however, are supposed to 
have adhered to the day appointed by the law, and to have celebrated the 
Pasch on the evening of the 14th. Attempts have been made to find a jus¬ 
tification for this hypothesis in the later Jewish calendars, according to 
which the first day of the Paschal festival was never observed on a Mon¬ 
day, Wednesday, or Friday. It has already been pointed out that there is 
no positive evidence of any such transference in the time before the Tal¬ 
mud, and that the acceptance of such a theory does not remove existing 
difficulties. 


1 Langen, Tholuck, Luthardt, Keil, and others. 

* xxviii. 16, 17. 


2 xxiii. 5, 6. 

4 John xiii. 29. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 35 

2. Many other commentators have put forward the. so-called anticipation 
hypothesis / which differs from the former on the following points. It as¬ 
sumes that the Jews celebrated the Paschal supper on the 14th of Nisan 
and observed the. 15th as the first day of the festival, but that Jesus cele¬ 
brated the Pasch on the evening of the 13th and was crucified on the 14th. 
Two features characteristic of this argument are: (1) that the fourth gos¬ 
pel fixes the Paschal supper as held on the 13th of Nisan, and (2), that the 
synoptic writers intentionally used obscure language in speaking of the date 
of the Last Supper. 

3. Others again think that there was a double celebration of the Paschal 
festival. Their arguments may be stated briefly thus: The beginning of the 
month was determined, not by astronomical calculations, but by direct ob¬ 
servation of the first appearance of the new moon, and as this observation 
had to be made known by means of signals and of messengers, there was 
some danger lest there should be the difference of a day in the beginning 
of the month between Jerusalem and outlying districts, and hence in the 
celebration of festivals. To avert this danger, at least in some degree, the 
chief festivals were observed during two days, in order that all Jews might 
participate in the celebration, even though their reckoning of the date were 
different. In the year of our Lord’s crucifixion, the Galileans began the 
month Nisan a day earlier than the Jews in Jerusalem, and consequently 
they would have begun their Paschal festival a day sooner. It is assumed 
that Jesus adhered to the Galilean reckoning. Apart from the fact that 
there is no evidence of any such duplication of great festivals among the 
Jews, this hypothesis looks like a makeshift device for the removal of the 
existing difficulties. 

A new attempt at a solution was made by Professor Chwolson of St. Peters¬ 
burg in an essay Das letzte Abendmahl Christi u. der Tag seines Todes, pub¬ 
lished in the Memoire de VAcademie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Peters¬ 
burg, Serie VII, Tom. 41, p. 37 ff.: If the 14th of Nisan fell on a Friday, the 
slaughtering and sacrificing of lambs in the temple took place on Thursday 
(13th of Nisan), because it was considered illicit to do this in the evening- 
twilight before the Sabbath, and the roasting of the lambs was made im¬ 
possible. The eating of the Pasch, however, as a private affair, took place 
either on the 13th or the 14th of Nisan, according to the various interpreta¬ 
tions of the law. A criticism in the Guardian, June 28, 1893, tends to show 
that this leaves the crucial question just where it was. A later contribution 
is that of G. M. Semeria, Le Jour de la Mort de Jesus, Rev. Bibl. 1896. 

From a very early period Christians observed the anniversaries of our 
Lord’s Passion and Death. It can be proved that even in the 4th century 
the Thursday of Holy Week was kept by the Church, On that day St. John 
Chrysostom delivered a sermon, which is still extant, in which he spoke of 
the institution of the most holy Eucharist, and alluded to Judas’s treachery. 
In commemoration of the Eucharist this day was called by ancient authors 
Dies panis or Natalis calicis. In the liturgical books of the Western Church 
it is termed coena Domini, or Feria V in coena Domini, in memory of the 
institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. Another name given to 
it was dies viridium. The most probable explanation of this name is that 
on this day grievous sinners, who had done penance during Lent, received 
absolution and were re-admitted to the Church, so that, to use our Lord’s 
expression, 2 they ceased to be dry wood and became green wood again. 


See Langen, 77 seqq. 


2 Luke xxiii. 31. 



36 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

The Friday of Holy Week is called by St. John Chrysostom « 

>tryd\ij TrapacKtvfi, and by St Augustine dies dominicae passionis. The fol¬ 
lowing Saturday was known as t 6 neya <r&^arov. In the liturgical books 
the whole week is called hebdotnada major or sancto; the former name in¬ 
dicates its importance to our salvation, the latter expresses its significance 
in the religious life of man. 

The place where the Pasch was celebrated. According to a 
very old tradition the Supper Room was situated on the south¬ 
western side of Mount Sion. The Christians honored the 
spot where the Holy Ghost came down upon the apostles by 
building upon it the first church erected in Jerusalem. This 
ancient church was called Sancta Sion , the church of the 
apostles, and the mother of all churches. In his catechetical 
discourses, delivered about 348 a.d. in the Church of the Holy 
Sepulchre at Jerusalem, St. Cyril says: “We acknowledge the 
Holy Ghost, who spake by the prophets, and at Pentecost came 
down upon the apostles in the form of tongues of fire here in 
the upper church of the apostles at Jerusalem.” 1 In the fifth 
century a great basilica was built on the same site, containing 
also the so-called Dormitio Mariae, namely, the house of St. 
John the Evangelist, only a few steps distant from the Supper 
Room. This church was subsequently destroyed, and the holy 
places underwent various vicissitudes, until at last, in the year 
1547, they passed out of the hands of the Franciscans (who 
had been in possession of them for about two hundred years), 
into those of Moslems, who built the mosque En Nebj Daud 
(of the prophet David) on the site of the Supper Room. The 
Dormitio Mariae , situated a little to the west of this mosque, 
was presented by the Sultan to William II, then Emperor of 
Germany, who by a document dated October 30th, 1898, put 
it at the disposal of the German Palestine Association, and it is 
now in the hands of the Belgian Benedictines. 

II. The Jewish Paschal Supper; its Sacrificial 
Character 

As our Divine Saviour instituted the most holy Eucharist in connection 
with the Jewish Pasch, a short account of the mode of celebrating the 
Paschal supper is here in order, so that we may be able to follow the course 
of events on this sacred evening* * 


1 Catech. l6, 4 • &vcorkpa t&v 6.to<tt6\iov knicXriaia. 

* Bynaeus, I, c. 6 and 7; Kirchenlexikon, 4, 45-47. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 37 

Certain necessary preparations had to be made for the Paschal supper, 
the first being the removal from the house of all leaven and the baking of 
the unleavened bread, which was eaten throughout the whole octave of the 
feast, and not merely at the Paschal supper. During the night between the 
13th and 14th of Nisan, careful search was made, by the light of an oil 
lamp, for every trace of leavened bread, and this was burnt at noon on the 
14th with special ceremonies. Thenceforth nothing leavened might be 
eaten, and the law required unleavened bread to be eaten at the Pasch, on 
the evening of the 14th. This explains, as has already been pointed out, 
why people spoke sometimes of seven, and sometimes of eight days of un¬ 
leavened bread. 1 2 * There were seven days according to the law that ordered 
unleavened bread to be eaten from the evening of the 14th until the 21st of 
Nisan; there were eight days of the azymes, because it was a universal 
custom to eat nothing leavened after midday on the 14th. Great importance 
was attached to the preparation of the Paschal lamb, which had to be with¬ 
out blemish, a male, one year old. It was selected on the 10th of Nisan, 
kept apart from the other lambs, and carefully tended until it was killed.* 
The law of Moses required the lamb to be killed 8 at sunset on the 14th of 
Nisan, 4 * but it was the custom to begin killing the lambs about the third 
hour in the afternoon, as soon as the evening sacrifice had been offered, 
for on that day this took place earlier than usual. 6 7 A blast of trumpets 
indicated that the killing of the lambs had begun in the forecourt of the 
Temple; 6 as a rule each householder slew his own lamb, but occasionally 
Levites were employed. The great influx of pilgrims made it difficult to 
avoid interruptions, so it was found advisable to admit people carrying 
lambs in three successive groups to the forecourt. The priests took part in 
the killing, for they stood in two rows to catch the blood in bowls, which 
were passed from hand to hand to the altar of sacrifice, and poured out at 
its base. During the ceremony Levites chanted the great Hallel to the 
sound of trumpets. Each lamb, as soon as it was dead, was skinned and 
cleaned in the Temple, the tail, the fat of the entrails, the kidneys, and the 
liver were laid on the altar as a sacrifice, but the rest was carried home and 
cooked. Pilgrims from a distance generally presented the skin of their 
lamb to the owner of the house in which they kept the Pasch. 

At the Jewish Pasch the following kinds of food were served: 

1. The chief dish was the Paschal lamb, roasted at nightfall/ It was 
expressly forbidden by the law to break one of its bones.* The lamb being 
whole and undivided was to symbolize the truth that the Jews were one 
nation, and shared the full benefit of the divine blessing bestowed upon the 
Chosen People.® 

2. The unleavened bread formed an important item of food at the sup¬ 
per and during the whole octave. It was generally of wheaten flour, made 
into round, thin cakes, without flavor. The cakes were called either 
azymes, because they were unleavened, or the bread of affliction, 1 ® because 


1 Compare Flav. Jos. Ant. ii. 15, 1. 

2 Exod. xii. 5 et seq. 

* Bynaeus, I, 6, 29. 

4 Exod. xii. 6; Deut. xvi. 6; Num. ix. 3. 

* Mishna, Pesachim, 5, 1. Flav. Jos. B. J. vi. 9, 3. 

6 See Bynaeus, I, 1, 22, 23. 

7 Mishna, Pesachim, c. 5. 

8 Exod. xii. 46. 

" Compare John xix. 31 et seq. 18 Deut. xvi. 3. 



38 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

of the hasty preparation of this bread in Egypt under the afflictions suffered 
there by the Israelites. They were also known as Mazzoth, or clean bread, 
a name suggestive of their symbolical signification, reminding the Jews of 
the truth that by their exodus from Egypt and through the law of Moses 
they had become a new and holy nation, and that each individual was bound 
to walk before the face of God in purity of heart, free from the leaven of 
sin and wickedness. 1 

3. A kind of salad was served, consisting of five varieties of bitter¬ 
tasting plants. 2 This was intended to be a reminder of the bitterness of the 
bondage in Egypt. 

4. A bowl containing vinegar was placed on the table, so that the bitter 
leaves might be dipped into it. 

5. Wine, which was supplied to the poor at public cost. 3 As a rule, red 
wine was used; this was mixed with water in the cup, and not beforehand, 
the proportions being four parts of wine to> one of water. The earliest evi¬ 
dence that our Lord mixed water with wine before the consecration occurs 
in the Apostolic Constitutions 4 regarding the liturgy. This is the reason 
why the Church orders water to be added to the wine at holy Mass. 

6. The last dish was a kind of sweetmeat, made of various fruits, such 
as dates, figs, almonds, etc., and mixed with wine, vinegar, and cinnamon. 
It was known as Charoseth, and was of the color of brick. The color of 
brick was intended to remind the Jews of the hard work they had performed 
in Egypt, and so to increase their present happiness. Keil thinks that this 
solid Charoseth had replaced in the course of time a liquid Charoseth into 
which the food had been dipped. Such a mixture is mentioned by commen¬ 
tators on the Talmud; its place was taken by the bowl of vinegar. 

The ritual of the Paschal supper is contained in the so-called Hagga- 
dah, which in its essentials undoubtedly dates back to the time of Christ. 
The law requires a lamb to be killed for each family, but if a family was 
too small to eat a whole animal, other families could join in the supper. 8 
Later on it was usual for not less than ten and not more than twenty per¬ 
sons to partake of one lamb. 6 Only Jews, and Gentile converts who had 
been circumcised, could lawfully be present at the Paschal supper. 7 There 
is nothing said in the law regarding women, but Josephus 8 takes their pres¬ 
ence for granted, and the Mishna states explicitly that they were admitted 
to the Pasch. 9 All, even the poor, reclined whilst eating the Paschal sup¬ 
per, in token of having regained their liberty at their departure from 
Egypt. 10 

The Jews divide the ritual of the Pasch into four parts. 

First part. After all had washed their hands the first cup of wine was 
mixed, and blessed by the master of the house with the following words: 
“ Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, Ruler of the World, who didst create 
the fruit of the vine.” Thanks were then offered to God for festivals in 
general, and for the present Pasch in particular. Thereupon the master of 
the house drank some of the wine, and handed a first cup to all present. 
This cup was called the Kiddush, or cup of the dedication of the festival. 
It is uncertain whether in the time of our Lord the practice had arisen of 


1 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. 

8 Mishna, Pesachim, 10, 1. 

* Exod. xii. 3, 4, 21. 

T Exod. xii. 43-50. 

* Pesachim, 8, 1. 


3 Excxi. xii. 8. 

4 viii. 12. 

6 Flav. Jos. B. J. vi. 9, 3. 
' B. J. vi. 9, 3. 

Pesachim, 10. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 39 

handing to each person a separate cup, or whether the one cup was passed 
round to all present. 

The table, on which the various dishes were arranged, was then brought 
into the room. The master of the house, after again washing his hands, 
blessed the food, took a part as large as an olive of the bitter herbs, dipped 
it into the Charoseth (or, according to another account,into vinegar), uttered 
a thanksgiving for the produce of the earth, and then, after eating this por¬ 
tion of the bitter herbs, passed the dish round to all those present. 

Second part. The preliminary to this part was the mixing of the second 
cup. A son of the house, or someone else, asked the reason for the cus¬ 
toms peculiar to that evening, and in reply the master of the house related 
the story of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and explained the 
significance of each dish served at the supper. The speaker extolled espe¬ 
cially God’s wonderful dealings with the Jews, saying: “Therefore it is 
our duty to thank, praise, laud, extol, exalt, magnify, bless, honor and wor¬ 
ship Him who hath done all these things for our fathers and for ourselves; 
He hath brought us out of bondage into freedom; out of oppression to joy, 
out of mourning to festal gladness, out of darkness to great light, and out 
of servitude to redemption; therefore let us sing before Him a new song, 
Alleluia.” In response to his invitation all present then sang the first two 
psalms of the Hallel. 1 * At certain important words the cup of wine was 
raised aloft, and then replaced on the table, and when the psalms were 
ended the second cup was drunk. This was called the cup of the Haggadah, 
because it was drunk following the Haggadah, i.e., the narrative of what 
took place at the time of the exodus from Egypt. After again washing his 
hands the master of the house took a cake of bread, and broke it in half; 
then he blessed it, using the regular formula for blessing bread: Benedictus 
sit ille qui producit panem e terra; and after referring to the law requiring 
none but unleavened bread to be eaten on that day, he ate part of the cake 
himself, and broke off a little piece for each of those present to eat. The 
breaking of the one cake signified that the Mazzoth was the bread of sor¬ 
row and poverty. 

Third part. All washed their hands before this part of the supper, then 
two prayers were uttered, thanking God for commanding His people to eat 
the sacrifice and the Paschal lamb. Thereupon all took their places 
and lay down beside the table. The actual feast began as soon as the 
master of the house had helped himself to the first piece of the lamb, and 
the festal rejoicings were then at their height. With the roasted lamb 
was served the boiled flesh of peace offerings (Chagigah) made during the 
octave of the Pasch. During the actual meal each person could drink what 
wine he chose; the ritual-did not require any special cup to be handed round. 
The last mouthful eaten had to be a portion of the Paschal lamb. 

Fourth part. Once more all washed their hands, and then the third cup 
was mixed; this was the chalice of blessing, because the grace after the 
meal was pronounced immediately before it was drunk. This grace was a 
prayer thanking and praising God for the food just eaten, and for all His 
gifts. It concluded with a petition for the speedy coming of the Messianic 
age: “ May the All-Merciful make us worthy of the days of the Messiah 
and of the life of the world to come.” The fourth cup was then mixed, but 
not drunk until after the second part of the Hallel, 3 for which reason it was 

1 Ps. cxii ( Laudate pueri ) and cxiii. 1-8 (In exitu Israel ), according 

to the Hebrew numeration Ps. cxiii and Ps. cxiv. 

* Ps. cxiii. 9-117, or, in the Hebrew numeration, Ps. cxv. 1-118. 



40 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


called the cup of the Hallel. The drinking of a fifth cup was not strictly- 
prescribed, but whenever it was drunk, the great Hallel had to be sung. It 
is uncertain whether this consisted simply of Ps. cxxxv (Vulgate; accord¬ 
ing to the Hebrew numeration Ps. cxxxvi), which is in the liturgical 
books called the great Hallel, or whether the preceding gradual psalms also 
belonged to it. The feasting was not to last later than midnight. 

The question whether the Jewish Paschal lamb was a sacrifice, and the 
Paschal supper a sacrificial meal, can be dealt with shortly. A few writers 
have for polemical reasons answered in the negative, chiefly in order to 
have more justification for attacking the Catholic doctrine regarding the 
sacrifice of the Mass; but at the present time the question is almost univer¬ 
sally and properly answered in the affirmative. Moses calls the lamb a 
Zebach Pesach, i.e., the victim of the passage of the Lord. * 1 * Moreover, ex¬ 
pressions such as “ the blood of my victim,” “ the blood of my sacrifice,” 
show that the Paschal lamb was peculiarly Jehovah’s sacrifice.* It was so 
especially because, when it was first offered, it was the foundation of the 
whole system of sacrifice in the Mosaic law.* Josephus calls the Jewish 
Pasch a “sacrificial banquet.” 4 The lamb, after the laying on of hands, had 
to be slain in the Temple, its blood was poured out on the altar, and certain 
portions of its body were offered up; all these things point to its having 
been a sacrifice, but, over and above these facts, we find that both in the 
Old and New Testaments the verb signifying to kill the Paschal lamb is 
6 ieiP t which indicates a solemn ceremonial slaying of victims, and is equiva¬ 
lent to our “ to sacrifice.” Finally, St. Paul could not have spoken of the 
Pasch as a type of Christ ‘ unless it possessed an essentially sacrificial char¬ 
acter. The Paschal lamb belonged to a special class of bloody sacrifices, 
since it was a combination of a sin and of a peace offering. The outpoured 
blood indicated atonement and reconciliation with God, whilst the subse¬ 
quent sacrificial feast expressed the delight of intercourse with Him.* 

Table showing the course of a Jewish Paschal feast and the 
sequence of events recorded as having taken place at our 
Lord’s Last Supper. 

The Paschal Feast The Last Supper 

First Part 

1. All present wash their hands. 

2. The first cup is mixed and 
blessed. 

3. Thanksgiving for the present 
festival. 

4. The first cup is drunk. (Luke xxii. 15-18. Comely.) 

5. The table bearing the Paschal 
dishes is carried into the room. 

6. The master of the house washes 
his hands. 


1 

2 
s 
4 
6 
a 


Exod. xii. 27; compare Bynaeus, I, 1, 22. 

Exod. xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 25. 

Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen Bundes, 82. 
B. J. vi. Q, 3- 

I Cor. v. 7, compare x. 16 seqq. 

Thalhofer, 81, 82. 




4i 


PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


The Paschal Feast 

7. He takes bitter herbs, dips them 
in vinegar, and gives thanks for the 
fruits of the field. 

8. He eats the herbs and passes the 
dish to all present, that they may eat 
thereof. 

Second Part 

1. The second cup is mixed. 

2. The Haggadah, i.e., the account 
of the exodus from Egypt, and of 
the meaning of the feast that is in 
course of celebration. 

3. Ps. cxii. 1 to Ps. cxiii. 8 is sung. 

4. The second cup is drunk. 

5. After washing his hands, the 
master of the house blesses the bread 
and passes it round. 

Third Part 

1. All present wash their hands. 

2. Thanksgiving for the law order¬ 
ing the Chagigah and the Paschal 
lamb to be eaten. 

3. Eating the Paschal lamb. Wine 
is drunk without ritual. The feast 
must end with a mouthful of the 
lamb’s flesh. 

Fourth Part 

I. All present wash their hands. 


2. The third cup is mixed. 

3. Thanksgiving after the feast. 


4. The third cup is drunk. 


The Last Supper 


(Luke xxii. 15-18; Matthew xxvi. 
29; Mark xiv. 25.) 


Washing of the disciples’ feet. 
Our Lord’s words regarding the sig¬ 
nificance of this act. He twice indi¬ 
cates the traitor (John xiii. 1-22). 

Celebration of the Last Supper 
(Matthew xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 
22-24; Luke xxii. 19-20). 

Repeated indication of the traitor, 
withdrawal of Judas (Matthew xxvi. 
21-25; Mark xiv. 18-21; Luke xxii. 
21 , 22; John xiii. 23-30). 

Dispute for precedence among the 
disciples (Luke xxii. 23-30). 

Prayer for Simon Peter (Luke 
xxii. 31-32). 

Peter’s denial foretold (Matthew 
xxvi. 31-35; Mark xiv. 27-31; Luke 
xxii. 33-34; John xiii. 36-38). 

Prediction of the persecution of 
the apostles (Luke xxii. 35-38). 




42 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


The Paschal Feast 

5. The fourth cup is mixed. Ps. 
cxiii. 9-17 is sung. 

6. The fourth cup is drunk. 

7. The fifth cup may be mixed and 
drunk. 

8. The great Hallel is sung (Ps. 
cxxxv. or Ps. cxix-cxxxv). 


The Last Supper 

Further discourse addressed by 
Jesus to the apostles (John xiv. i-i 7 » 
26). 

Walk from the Supper Room to 
the Mount of Olives (Matthew xxvi. 
30; Mark xiv. 26; Luke xxii. 39; 
John (xiv. 31) xviii. 1). 


III. Our Lord's Desire for the Paschal Supper 


Luke xxii. 14-18 

14. And when the hour was 
come, he sat down and the 
twelve apostles with him. 

15. And he said to them: 
With desire I have desired 
to eat this pasch with you 
before I suffer. 

16. For I say to you that 
from this time I will not eat 
it till it be fulfilled in the 
kingdom of God. 

17. And having taken the 
chalice, he gave thanks and 
said: Take, and divide it 
among you. 

18. For I say to you, that 
I will not drink of the fruit 
of the vine, till the kingdom 
of God come. 


Matthew xxvi. 29 

29. And I say to you, I will 
not drink from henceforth of 
this fruit of the vine, until 
that day when I shall drink 
it with you new in the king¬ 
dom of my father. 


Mark xiv. 25 

25. Amen I say to you, that 
I will drink no more of the 
fruit of the vine, until that 
day when I shall drink it new 
in the kingdom of God. 


St. Luke alone has recorded the words uttered by our 
Saviour just before the Paschal Supper, and the same evangelist 
tells us that Jesus sat down and the twelve apostles with Him, 
when the hour had come prescribed by the Mosaic law for 
beginning the meal. According to Jewish custom the lamb 
was roasted as soon as twilight set in, 1 so the hour was probably 
six or seven in the evening. During this last night our Lord 
uttered the discourse recorded in the synoptic gospels, and also 
the words of consolation and exhortation, as well as the 
prayer which St. John alone has preserved. The words above 
quoted from St. Luke formed the introduction to this series 
of speeches, for the theory that the washing of the apostles’ 
feet, and the words uttered by our Lord during the ceremony, 2 
should be placed quite at the beginning of the supper, is unten- 

1 Mishna, Pesachim, 5, 10: si tenebrae oborirentur exibant et assabant 
pascha suum. 

2 John xiii. 1 seqq. 






PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


43 


able. As soon as Jesus and the apostles had according to 
custom taken their places at the table, He said: “ With desire 
I have desired to eat this Pasch with you, before I suffer.” 

Before we can understand the reason for this ardent desire, we must 
answer the questions: “Had Jesus previously celebrated the Pasch during 
His public ministry? If so, had the apostles, as such, been present?’’ — In 
all probability our Lord visited Jerusalem for the Paschal festival twice 
before His Passion ; 1 whereas He remained in Galilee the third year . 2 
There is no ground for assuming that, although He was in Jerusalem on 
the two occasions, He did not partake of the Paschal supper; on the con¬ 
trary, His exact observance of the Jewish law in other respects is evidence 
of His joining in the celebration of this feast, so full of historical and 
symbolical significance. On the other hand, our Saviour had never before 
kept the Pasch with his apostles in a body, because on the occasion of the 
two Paschs He had spent in Jerusalem, they had not yet been called, and 
the Pasch following their call was passed in Galilee. 


Our Lord’s keen desire to eat the Pasch with the apostles 
is partially explained by the circumstance that at this feast, 
in itself so full of significance, He acted for the first time as 
head of the household of which Plis twelve apostles were the 
members. Moreover, this was to be the farewell banquet, at 
which He took leave of those who were to remain as His 
representatives on earth. But the chief reason for His desire 
is revealed to us by His subsequent words and by the events 
of the night: Jesus had a great longing for this supper, because 
thenceforth the types would be replaced by the means of salva¬ 
tion that they had symbolized, and because He was eager to 
institute before His death the Eucharistic banquet, the sacrifice 
of the New Testament. Lyranus emphasizes this reason and 
says: quia tunc finivit vetus testamentum et inchoavit novum, 
quod erat sibi in desiderium. 

Jesus alludes to the typical significance of the Paschal supper 
and to the approaching substitution of reality for type, when 
He says: “From this time I will not eat it (the Pasch) till it 
be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” “ The Kingdom of God ” 
in this passage is not Christ’s Church on earth, but His Church 
triumphant in heaven, the Kingdom of fulfillment. That this 
is the correct interpretation appears from the last verse of 
this chapter and from the parallel passages in Matthew and 
Mark. Hence the Jewish Pasch was a type, a dim foreshadow- 


1 John ii. 13 ; v. i. 


2 John vi. 4 . 



44 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


ing of that joyful and endless feast that the faithful will 
share with Christ in heaven, when at the end of their earthly 
course they reach their home above. Upon the Church on 
earth is bestowed as prelude to this heavenly feast the Holy 
Eucharist, in which Christ Himself, the Pasch of the New 
Testament, is received. This was instituted during the Paschal 
supper so ardently desired by our Lord, and He had described 
its life-giving effects just a year before, in the synagogue at 
Capharnaum. 1 

At the Last Supper Jesus took a cup filled with wine, blessed 
it, and handed it to the disciples, saying: “ Take and divide it 
among you.” St. Luke alone in his account of the supper 
mentions the cup twice, viz., here, and in speaking of the 
Eucharistic celebration. Commentators are divided in opinion 
as to the explanation of this peculiarity in St. Luke’s story. 
St. Augustine thinks that in each place St. Luke refers to the 
Eucharistic chalice, and mentions it twice. 2 Maldonatus 3 
follows St. Augustine on this point. 

On the other hand it is improbable that Jesus mentioned the 
same chalice twice in such a short time, and besides, St. Luke’s 
account, though very brief, distinguishes clearly between a cup 
of wine drunk during the Paschal supper, and the chalice of 
the Eucharist. We must therefore accept the opinion of most 
scholars, and distinguish the cup, that St. Luke mentions first, 
from the Eucharistic chalice, and regard it as one of the cups 
of wine prescribed by Jewish ritual to be drunk during the 
Paschal supper. 4 

Various answers are given to the question as to which of the cups pre¬ 
scribed by the Jewish law is here mentioned by St. Luke. The answer de¬ 
pends partly upon that given to the further question: Did the Eucharistic 
chalice take the place of the third, fourth, or fifth cup drunk according to 
the ritual of the Paschal supper? Many commentators think that it re¬ 
placed the fourth cup, but others say that it was the third. It is on the 
whole probable that the Eucharistic chalice took the place of the third cup 

1 John vi. 

2 De consens evangel. 3 , 2 : quod enim Lucas de calice bis commemo- 
ravit, prius antequam panem daret, et deinde postea quarn panem dedit, 
illud quod superius dixit, praeoccupavit. 

* Comm, ad loc. 

4 Ven. Bede takes this view and writes (Comm, in Lucam) : Et hie calix 
ad vetus illud pascha, cui finem desiderabat imponere, pertinebat. Quo 
accepto gratias egit ob hoc nimirum, quia vetera transitura et ventura 
fuerant omnia nova. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 45 

at the Pasch, and the reference to it in St. Luke points to the beginning of 
the Jewish supper; hence we are forced to assume that the first cup men¬ 
tioned by St. Luke was identical with either the first or the second in the 
Paschal ritual. Bisping 1 2 * and Comely* identify it with the first, but the 
following considerations tend to show that it was the second, the cup of 
the Haggadah: According to St. Luke’s account the Paschal lamb seems to 
have been on the table in the supper-room at the time when Jesus began His 
discourse to His disciples, for He says that He had desired to eat with them 
this Pasch, i.e., the lamb already served upon the table. 

But the roasted lamb and the Chagigah meat and other constituents of 
the Paschal supper were at that time not brought into the room at all until 
after the first cup of wine had been drunk.* Also our Lord’s allusion to the 
heavenly feast seems to suggest that the food typifying it was already 
served. Finally, the Jewish Haggadah, conveying information regarding 
the meaning of the supper, is analogous to our Lord’s words about the 
heavenly feast, as foreshadowed by the Jewish Pasch. 

The invitation to the apostles to drink of the chalice handed 
to them is explained by our Lord in the words: “ I say to you, I 
will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God 
come.” The same words, with very slight variations, occur 
also in Matthew and Mark, but in another context. In Luke 
they precede the account of the Eucharistic supper, in Matthew 
and Mark they stand immediately after it. Although most 
commentators are of opinion that these words were not spoken 
until after the institution of the Eucharist, I prefer to follow 
Maldonatus, who writes: Matthaeus et Marcus, non servato, 
ut saepe faciunt, narrationis ordine, verba, quae ante calicis 
consecrationem Christus dixerat, post consecrationem pos - 
uerunt . 4 My reasons for taking this view are: 1. There is 
a priori ground for believing St. Luke’s chronology to be ac¬ 
curate in this case, because in the introduction to his gospel he 
promises to state facts in chronological order; 2. this belief 
gains strength from the fact that St. Luke in his account dis¬ 
tinguishes the Jewish Paschal supper from the Holy Eucharist, 
and records precisely what Jesus said regarding the Paschal 
supper and cup of wine. St. Matthew and St. Mark were 
obliged to insert our Lord’s words on this subject after their 
account of the celebration of the Eucharist, because they give 
no details concerning the Paschal supper. Some commentators 


1 ad loc. 

2 Libri introd. 3 , 297 . 

* Compare Bickell, 42 . 

4 Comm, ad Matth. xxvi. 29 . So also Corn, a Lap., Knabenbauer. 



46 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


think that our Lord uttered the same words both at the begin¬ 
ning and at the end of the meal. 1 

According to this theory regarding the sequence of events, 
the expression “ fruit of the vine ” refers, not to the Eucha¬ 
ristic chalice, but to the Paschal wine. The “ Kingdom of 
God,” or, as St. Matthew has it, the “ Kingdom of my Father,” 
undoubtedly means the Messianic Kingdom. So far com¬ 
mentators are agreed, but they differ with regard to the 
Messianic Kingdom. Some think of its beginning, of the 
institution of the new covenant at the celebration of the Eucha¬ 
rist; others refer to the time spent on earth by our glorified 
Saviour, others to the Church of Christ in this world, and, 
finally, very many to the Messianic Kingdom in the eschatolog¬ 
ical sense, viz., the Church triumphant in heaven. 

This last view may be adopted as probably correct. It 
gains support from the following considerations: i. Jesus had 
already ended His public ministry as the Messiah, when He 
spoke of the coming of the Kingdom of God; He called the 
date of the future Kingdom “ that day,” alluding unmistakably 
to the “ day of the Lord,” the day of His return to judge and 
consummate the world. Thus it will be in the Kingdom of 
Heaven that Christ, in the company of the apostles (‘‘with 
you”), will drink the fruit of the vine as a “new” drink of 
a higher and spiritual kind. The drinking of this wine symbol¬ 
izes the bliss of those who dwell in heaven. The Psalmist 
uses similar language when he says: “ They shall be inebriated 
with the plenty of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink 
of the torrent of thy pleasure.” 2 

How are we to reconcile our Lord’s solemn statement in the Cenaculum 
(Supper Room), at Jerusalem, with the fact that after the Resurrection 
He ate food and apparently drank wine on several occasions? 3 The answer 
usually given is: After the resurrection He ate food not, as men do, in 
order to support life, but in order to prove the reality of His risen body. 
This is true enough, as will be shown when we deal with the period follow¬ 
ing the resurrection; but the correct reply to the question is: Christ was 
here speaking exclusively of eating the Paschal lamb and of drinking the 
wine prescribed by the ritual of the Pasch. 


1 Comely also seems to take this view. 

2 Ps. xxxv. 9 . 

8 Acts x. 41 . 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


47 


IV. Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist 


Matthew xxvi. 26-28 

26. ’E aOiovruv 8k abr&v Xafi&v 6 Ttj<xoDs 
Aprov Kal evXoyrjaas kKXaaev Kal bovs tols 
paOrjrais abrov elirev ' Xa^ere ^ayere ' tovto 
kanv to a&pa pov. 

27. Kai Xa(3&v ttotijplov Kal ebxo-prarri- 
aas kbioKev avrois Xkyuv' it lere e£ abrov 
ir avres. 

28. Tovto yap kariv to alpa pov ttjs 
( Kaivrjs) biadrjKijs to irepl iroXX&v kKxvvvo- 
pevov els aef>eatv apapriu>v. 

26. Coenantibus autem eis accepit 
Jesus panem et benedixitac fregit de- 
ditque discipulis suis et ait: Accipite 
et comedite, hoc est corpus meum. 

27. Et accipiens calicem gratias 
egit et dedit illis dicen$: Bibite ex 
hoc omnes; 

28. Hie est enim sanguis meus novi 
testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur 
in remissionem peccatorum. 

26. And whilst they were at sup¬ 
per, Jesus took bread, and blessed, 
and broke: and gave to his disciples, 
and said: Take ye and eat: This is 
my body. 

27. And taking the chalice he gave 
thanks: and gave to them, saying; 
Drink ye all of this. 

28. For this is my blood of the 
new testament which shall be shed 
for many unto remission of sins. 

Luke xxii. 19, 20 

19. Kai Xafi&v Aprov e£>x a P t<rri 7 <ras 2»cXa- 
aev Kal ebioKev avrois Xkywv' tovto eariv 
to awpa pov rd virkp vpivv bibopevov tovto 
iroieire eis epr/v dvapvrjaiv. 

20. Kat rd ircrrripiov evaabnos pera to 
beiirvijaai Xeycov ' tovto to iroTijpiov ij Kaivij 
biadrjKij kv tQ at par l pov, to virkp vpoiv 
kKxwvbpevov. 


19. Et accepto pane gratias egit et 
fregit et dedit illis dicens: Hoc est 
corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur; 
hoc facite in meam commemora- 
tionem. 


Mark xiv. 22-24 

22. Kai kadiovncv avrCdv Xafie'jv (& Trj- 
aovs) aprov ebXoyqaas eKXaaev Kal ebiOKev 
avrois Kal elirev ' toSto kanv to a&pib 
pov. 

23. Kai Xafi&v irorrjpiov ebxo-P^Tqa as 
ebioKev avrois, Kal kiriov abrov iravres. 

24. Kai elirev avrois ' tovto eanv to alpit 
pov ttjs ( Kaivijs ) 8iaBi)K7]s to eKxvvvopevov 
virkp iroXX&v. 

22. Et manducantibus illis accepit 
Jesus panem et benedicens fregit et 
dedit eis et ait: Sumite. hoc est cor¬ 
pus meum. 

23. Et accepto calice gratias agens 
dedit eis; et biberunt ex illo omnes. 

24. Et ait illis: hie est sanguis 
meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis 
effundetur. 

22. And whilst they were eating, 
Jesus took bread: and blessing broke, 
and gave to them, and said: Take ye, 
this is my body. 

23. And having taken the chalice, 
giving thanks he gave it to them. 
And they all drank of it. 

24. And he said to them: This is 
my blood of the new testament, 
which shall be shed for many. 


1 Cor. xi. 23-25 

23. ’E^o) yap irapeXafiov airo to 0 Kvplov, 
0 Kal irapeSojKa vpiv, on o Kvpios Ttj<7oDs 
kv rj) wktI fj irapeblbeTo eXafiev aprov Kal 
eoxo-P^T-qaas eKXaaev Kal elirev * 

24. Tovto pov eanv to aoipa to virkp vpu>v 
(KXicpevov) ' tovto iroieire els rrjv kprjv ava- 
pirqaiv. 

25. 'Qaabr cos Kal t6 irvTrjpvov pera t 6 
beirvrjaai X’eywv ’ tovto to roTt\pvov t) Kaivi/ 
bia0i]Krj kariv kv rw kpx? a'Lpan ' tovto iroi - 
eire. 'OaaKis kav irlvr]Te els ttjv kprjv ava- 
pvijaiv. 

23. Ego enim accepi a Domino, 
quod et tradidi vobis, quoniam Do- 
minus Jesus, in qua nocte tradeba- 
tur, accepit panem; 




4 8 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

i Cor. xi. 23-25 

24. Et gratias agens fregit et 
dixit: Accipite et manducate, hoc 
est corpus meum, quod pro vobis 
tradetur; hoc facite in meam com- 
memorationem. 

25. Similiter et calicem, postquam 
coenavit, dicens: Hie calix novum 
testamentum est in meo sanguine. 
Hoc facite, quotiescunque bibetis, in 
meam commemorationem. 

23. For I have received of the 
Lord that which also I delivered 
unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the 
same night in which he was be¬ 
trayed, took bread, 

24. And giving thanks, broke, and 
said: Take ye and eat: this is my 
body which shall be delivered for 
you: this do for the commemoration 
of me. 

25. In like manner also the chal¬ 
ice, after he had supped, saying: 
This chalice is the new testament in 
my blood: this do ye, as often as 
you shall drink, for the commemo¬ 
ration of me. 

The Most Holy Eucharist, the great mystery of mysteries, 
was instituted by our Lord during the Paschal supper, im¬ 
mediately before the beginning of His Passion. As the high 
priest of the New Testament, He performed a sacrificial act 
and at the same time celebrated Holy Communion in the 
Cenaculum at Jerusalem; in addition He appointed the apostles 
and their successors as priests, commissioned to offer in per¬ 
petuity the Eucharistic sacrifice, and to administer the sacrificial 
food to the faithful, in the most holy Sacrament of the Altar. 

Explanation of the words preceding the Consecration. 
Chronological order of the acts of consecration. St. Matthew 
and St. Mark say that Jesus consecrated the bread “ whilst 
they were at supper,” 1 or, “whilst they were eating”; 2 
St. Luke does not indicate the time of the transubstantiation 
of the bread, but, like St. Paul, says that our Lord conse¬ 
crated the chalice “after He had supped.” 3 Some commen¬ 
tators think it necessary, therefore, to infer that the Holy 

1 Matthew xxvi. 26. 1 Mark xiv. 22. 

* Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25. 


Luke xxii. 19, 20 

20. Similiter et calicem, post¬ 
quam coenavit, dicens: Hie est ca¬ 
lix novum testamentum in san¬ 
guine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur. 

19. And taking bread he gave 
thanks, and brake; and gave to 
them, saying: This is my body 
which is given for you. Do this 
for a commemoration of me. 

20. In like manner the chalice 
also, after he had supped, saying: 
This is the chalice, the new testa¬ 
ment in my blood, which shall be 
shed for you. 




PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 49 

Eucharist was instituted in two acts, separated one from the 
other by an interval of time, and not in immediate succession; 
that the holy Sacrifice was instituted under the form of bread 
during the supper, but under the fonm of wine after the supper 
was ended. 1 The majority of commentators think that there 
was no interval between the two acts of consecration; this 
seems the more probable opinion, but those who attempt to 
justify it have assigned various interpretations to the words of 
St. Luke and St. Paul. 

In the first place, we must notice that the indication of time given by St. 
Matthew and St. Mark in the words eaOLoi ntav avruv (“ as they were eat¬ 
ing ”) need not necessarily refer to the action of eating, but they mean 
simply “ whilst they were still at the table.” Secondly, the expression: 
“ After He had supped,” that occurs in the accounts given by St. Luke and 
St. Paul, should probably be understood as referring to the Paschal meal in 
its proper sense, partly because in the Greek a verb has to be supplied from 
the previous verse, and partly because the words “in like manner” allude 
also to the institution of the Eucharist under the form of bread, and thus 
St. Luke and St. Paul transfer the consecration of both, the bread and 
the wine, to the time after the Paschal meal. This view gains weight from 
the position of the conjunction Kal in the Recepta and in the Vulgate, al¬ 
though the reading is not absolutely certain. There have other attempts 
been made to remove the difficulty in the words ^tcl rb Senrvrjaat. It is 
incorrect to give to the words eadiovruv axnCjv in St. Matthew and St. Mark 
a past sense and to translate “ after they had eaten.” A few scholars have 
adopted a suggestion made by early commentators* to the effect that St. 
Luke inserted the words “ after He had supped ” merely in order to dis¬ 
tinguish the Eucharistic chalice from the previously mentioned cup. Cor- 
nely thinks that the expression verb, rb denrvij<r<u i s added to render more 
definite the vague indication of time conveyed by iaOiovrwv. 

The Eucharist was therefore probably instituted in two suc¬ 
cessive acts, following closely one upon the other, after the 
Paschal supper, the conclusion of which was marked by the 
master of the house eating the last piece, of the size of an olive, 
of the Paschal lamb. After this, no food was to be eaten that 
evening, but the ritual required two more cups of wine to be 
drunk, viz., the third, the cup of blessings, and the fourth, the 
cup of the Hallel. A fifth was often poured out and handed 
round, but it was not strictly prescribed, and so those present 
might refuse it if they so chose. With which cup, prescribed 
by the Jewish ritual, may the chalice of the Holy Communion 

1 Thus St. Thomas Aquinas, Comm, ad 1 Cor. xi. 25; Bellarmine, 
De eucharistia, iv. 27; Patrizi, De evang., and others. 

8 Cajet., Estius ad 1 Cor. xi. 25. 





5o 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


be identified? As our Lord instituted the Sacrament after the 
Paschal supper, we have to decide whether it coincided with 
the third, fourth, or fifth cup of the Pasch. There have been 
commentators in favor of each of the three, and it is perhaps 
impossible to arrive at absolute certainty. Recent scholars 
incline to the opinion that the Eucharistic chalice took the place 
of the fifth cup. 1 

The arguments in support of this view are: The type was 
once more to be enacted in all its essential parts, before the 
antitype took its place. As the third and fourth cups were 
obligatory, according to the Paschal ritual, the chalice of the 
Eucharist must have taken the place of the fifth cup, which 
was optional. Moreover our Lord’s words, “ Drink ye all of 
this,” point to the fifth cup, since this was the only one of 
which all those present at the supper were not bound to partake. 
These two arguments will be discussed more fully later on. 
On the other hand, many commentators, both old and new f 
identify the Eucharistic chalice with the fourth cup. 2 

Others again think, with apparently greater probability, 
that the Eucharistic chalice took the place of the third cup 
of the Pasch, so that our Saviour, after pouring and mixing the 
wine, proceeded first to consecrate the bread, and immediately 
afterwards the wine. The reasons for adopting this view 
are: It has already been pointed out that the celebration of the 
Eucharist took place “after supper.” Now the essential part 
of the supper was the eating of the Paschal lamb; after which 
the meal was practically over, as no other food might be taken 
that night. Whatever occurred in the supper room from that 
moment onward, might therefore be said to have occurred after 
supper. St. Paul seems to indicate that the celebration of the 
Sacrament followed immediately biter the Paschal supper, 
when he says: “ The chalice of benediction which we bless, is 
it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” 3 He is un¬ 
doubtedly speaking of holy Communion celebrated according 
to our Lord’s instructions by the Christian community in 
Corinth. The point is that St. Paul calls the chalice at the 


1 Thus Friedlieb, Langen, Bisping in Matthaeum. 

2 Scaliger (De emendat. temp, i, vi) ; Buxtorf (Lexic. Talm.) ; Bynaeus 
(i» 8 , 17 ) thinks the third cup the more probable, but the fourth possible. 

3 1 Cor. x. 16 . 




PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 51 

Eucharist “the chalice of benediction/’ and adds the remark, 
“which we bless/’ To the cup of blessing, handed round at 
the Jewish Pasch by the master of the house, is set opposite the 
chalice of benediction that the Christians possess, the chalice 
“ which we bless.” 

There is, moreover, a dogmatic consideration tending to 
support the opinion that the chalice of the Eucharist took the 
place of the third cup at the Paschal supper. According to the 
teaching of the New Testament, God designed the Old Testa¬ 
ment to have a symbolical character, 1 so that the types really 
belong to it, and are not arbitrarily invented and foisted upon 
it by men. Now the Paschal lamb was in a very special way 
a type of Christ, and the Jewish Pasch a type of the Holy 
Eucharist. Our Lord was greeted by His precursor 2 as the 
Lamb of God, the antitype of the Paschal lamb, and He was 
shown to be such by a significant proceeding at the Crucifixion 
of which St. John 3 gives an authentic explanation. St. Paul, 
too, writes 4 “Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.” From this close 
connection between the Jewish and the Christian Pasch it 
seems permissible to conclude that the antitype reality must 
have followed immediately upon the close of the action which 
was its type; i.e., that directly after the Jewish Pasch had 
been eaten, there followed the offering of Christ, the true Lamb 
of God, and the eating of the perfect Paschal supper. 

Arguments against this theory. The chief argument is that the type 
must once more have been complete, and the ritual carried out in every de¬ 
tail before it could give place to the reality. If the Eucharistic chalice is 
identified with the third Paschal cup, this would not have been the case, 
becausq a fourth cup was obligatory, and a change would have been made 
in the Jewish ceremonial had the institution of the Eucharist and the hand¬ 
ing round of the consecrated bread occurred at that point in the supper, 
since wine might be drunk after the conclusion of the meal, but nothing 
solid might be eaten. This argument is in- many respects untenable. It is 
impossible to prove that the type had to be completed once more in every 
detail before giving place to the reality, which it had represented. Jesus 
possessed divine authority, and His task was to fulfill, i.e., to complete, the 
law and the prophets. 6 We cannot make the fulfillment of the types depend¬ 
ent upon the detailed performance of the typical action by our Lord. .More- 
over, we do not know with certainty whether at the time of Christ the 
Haggadah already had the fixed form that we find in the Talmudists. An¬ 
other objection is based upon the words uttered by our Lord, when He 
handed the Eucharistic chalice to His disciples: “ Drink ye all of this.” 

1 Compare Heb. vii. 3; ix. 8. 1 John i. 29. ' xix. 33-36. 

* i Cor. v. 7. 6 Matthew v. 17. 



52 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Some commentators, laying stress upon the word all, have seen in this 
command a reference to the fifth cup at the Paschal supper, the drinking 
of which was, as has already been said, optional among the Jews. But the 
assertion that the emphasis must be laid upon the word all has only the 
weight of a subjective opinion. Our Lord’s command may equally well be 
referred to the third cup; He bade all the apostles to drink, because) the 
Eucharistic chalice was passed round once, and its contents were not re¬ 
newed : ut in orbem omnes ex eodem calice bibant. 

E vkoyeiv (gratias agere), evxapwTeiv (benedicere). In their 
account of the consecration of the bread, St. Matthew and 
St. Mark use the verb ev\oyyaas ; in that of the consecration of 
the wine evxap^Tyaas St. Luke and St. Paul have tvxapwTyaas 
of the bread, and no verb at all of the wine. The verbs are 
of similar meaning, but they must not be identified so com¬ 
pletely as to be regarded as synonymous. E vXoyelv means to 
give thanks, and refers to God the Father; evxapLaTelv means 
to bless, and refers to the bread. Christ thanks God for the 
Eucharist as a means of salvation foreshadowed by the Pasch, 
and now taking the place of its type. He pronounces the 
words of blessing over the bread, thus dedicating it and pre¬ 
paring it for the transubstantiation that was about to take 
place. In the Canon of the Mass the two words are coupled 
together: gratias agens benedixit. It would be a mistake to 
identify the bene die tio with the consecratio; this point will be 
discussed more fully in the next paragraph. 

The Accounts of the Consecration 

The consecration of the bread. In order to make the follow¬ 
ing explanation more intelligible, the actual words of the Bible 
are here quoted. 

Matthew xxvi. 26 

ToOro €<7tlv to crcopa pov . 

Hoc est corpus meum. 

Mark xiv. 22 

Touro ecr tlv t6 acopa pov. 

Hoc est corpus meum. 

Luke xxii. 19 

ToOro eariv to aupa pov to inrlp vp&v dibopevov. 

Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur . 


PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 53 


1 Cor. xi. 24 

T ovto pov karty rb a&pa to vtt Ip vpCov (/cXcbj uevov). 

Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur (Vulgate: 
tradetur). 

The following remarks may be made on these four texts: St. Matthew 
and St. Mark have precisely the same reading; St. Luke and St. Paul re¬ 
cord the same words but with an addition emphasizing the sacrificial char¬ 
acter of the consecrated bread. In St. Luke the participle diSo/ievov is ren¬ 
dered in the Vulgate by the present tense datur. There are two readings 
of St. Paul’s version: rd inep ip.uv y and, to inep ip.u>v K\d)p.evov t but the 
printed Vulgate has trader e instead of f rang ere, and substitutes the future 
for the present. There is nothing in the Greek to justify the future tense, 
and some manuscripts of the Vulgate read frangere, and not tradere. This 
reading occurs in two Greek-Latin MSS. of the Bible, viz. (i) the Codex 
Claromontanus, that dates from the 6th cent, and contains the earliest known 
version of the Latin translation; it is now in the National Library in 
Paris; and (2) the Codex Sangermanensis, that belongs to the 9th cent, 
and is now in Petrograd. The verb frangere in the future tense occurs in 
the Latin interlinear translation of the Codex Boernerianus, a manuscript 
containing St. Paul’s epistles, now in the Royal Library at Dresden. 

The pronoun tovto {hoc) is demonstrative: “this that I 
hold in my hand and am about to give you.” Our Lord was 
holding the bread He had blessed, and the apostles received, 
after the words of consecration had meantime been pronounced, 
from His Hand the transubstantiated bread, the Body of Christ 
under the form of bread. The question as to the mode of the 
transubstantiation will be discussed later. 

The consecration of the wine. 

Matthew xxvi. 28 

Touro yap iariv rb alpa pov to tt)s KaLvijs biadrjKrjs, Tb irepl ttoW&v 
kicxvvvbpevov els acfreoLV apapTL&v. 

Hie est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis 
effunditur (Vulgate: effundetur) in remissionem peccatorum. 

Mark xiv. 24 

Touro ecTTLV rb alpa pov Trjs KaLvrjs 8La6rjKTjs to virep -ttoXXco^ eKXWVO- 
pevov. 

Hie est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effun~ 
ditur (Vulgate: effundetur). 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Luke xxii. 20 

ToOro to TroTTjpLoy rj Kcuvri dLadrjKrj h r$ atparl pcov to vtt ep v/iuv 
hcxyvvonevov. 

Hie est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro 
vobis funditur (Vulgate: fundetur). 

1 Cor. xi. 25 

Touro to TroTripiov i] Kaivi) bia0r}K7] eoTiv ev rq> epco cu/zart. 

Hie calix novum testamentum in meo sanguine. 

Linguistic and critical notes. In all the accounts of the institution of the 
Eucharist the Greek text reads the present tense, whereas the printed text 
of the Vulgate reads the future everywhere except in Luke xxii. 19, where 
di8oy.evov is rendered traditur. Wordsworth has substituted the present for 
the future in the printed text of the Vulgate, and justifies the change by 
reference to early MSS. It is in accordance with Biblical usage to employ 
the present in speaking of future events which will certainly take place in 
a very short time: but the rules of language require us to assign a present 
meaning to the present tense, provided there is no good reason for doing 
otherwise. That there is no such reason in the case before us is apparent 
from the fact that all the sacred writers use the present. We must, more¬ 
over, notice that the phraseology is opposed to a deviation from the ordinary 
rule. If the present tense were here taken as equivalent to the future, the 
only possible reference would be to the Crucifixion. Now the words: “ the 
chalice which is poured out ” naturally allude to the pouring out in sacrifice 
of the contents of the Paschal cup, whereas to see in them an allusion to 
the outpouring on the cross of our Lord’s blood would result in a forced 
and unnatural figure of speech. In 1 Cor. xi. 25, the words “the body 
which is broken ” can hardly be understood of the sacrifice of Christ’s body 
on the cross, quite apart from the fact that His body was not broken 1 at 
all; the expression, however, is perfectly suitable when applied to the sacri¬ 
fice of our Lord’s body under the form of bread. If we adhere to the pres¬ 
ent tense throughout in the words of institution, they refer immediately 
and primarily to the Holy Eucharist, but this includes, and does not pre¬ 
clude, a simultaneous reference to the sacrifice of the cross. This refer¬ 
ence is brought out very clearly in the printed text of the Vulgate, where 
the present tenses of the Greek text are, with one exception, rendered by 
the future. On this Lucas Brugensis writes in his Commentary on the 
Gospels: 2 multi intelligunt, praesens positum esse pro imminente futuro, 
ut ad crucem referant; sed non frustra praesenti tempore utuntur tres 
evangelistae simul et Paulus — . . ., quinimmo clarum hinc evadit, quod non 
de cruce solum , verum etiam de coena et Eucharistia Christus loquatur, 
praesertini' cum . Lucas manif este effusionem non sanguini, sed calici tribuat. 
Non est intelligendum futurum tempus excluso praesenti, sed praesens 
incluso futuro propter continuitatem actionis. 


John xix. 33, 36. 


Antwerp, 1606-1616. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


SS 


As the present tense must be retained in dcdofievov, kKojiizvov f 
and eKXwvonwov, they refer directly to the Eucharistic celebra¬ 
tion, and apply to all our Lord’s actions during that night. 
It was on that evening that Jesus gave His body, and shed 
His blood, both for the apostles and for “ many,” He gave 
the apostles His body to eat and His blood to drink, and 
charged them to repeat in commemoration of Him the action 
He had performed. Before we proceed to consider each of 
these points separately, we must discuss the words by which 
our Lord Himself effected the transubstantiation of the bread 
and wine, and those by which priests, acting as His repre¬ 
sentatives, do the same thing. 

What were the words with which Christ effected the transub¬ 
stantiation of the bread and the wine? And what are the words 
by which priests, acting as His representatives, effect it? The 
only possible answer is: By the words of institution. The 
proof of this statement is as follows : Jesus commissioned the 
apostles to repeat in commemoration of Him the action that 
He performed in the Cenaculum. We should a priori expect 
them to use the same actions and words as their Master, for the 
more sacred an action is, the more important is the form in 
which it is accomplished. The Catechismus Romanus ex¬ 
presses this fact in the words: nam quod Dominus faciendum 
praecepit, non solum ad id, quod egerat, sed etiam ad ea, quae 
dixerat, referri debet. If this assumption be correct, then the 
words of institution must have been, and must still be, the 
words of consecration, partly because the sacred writers record 
no other words which could be regarded as the formula for 
the Eucharist transubstantiation, and, on the other hand, they 
give the words of institution with great precision. Therefore 
when a priest commissioned by Christ says in His name: “ This 
is my body,” the words are operative, and do not merely make 
a declaration. This view is expressed by the earliest Fathers 
and authors in the Church. A few only may be mentioned, such 
as Justin Martyr, 1 Tertullian, 2 and St. Ambrose, who writes: 
si tantum valuit humana benedictio ( scl . in miraculis V. T .) 
ut naturam converteret quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione 
divina, ubi ipsa verba Salvatoris operanturf Nam sacra- 
mentum illud, quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur. 3 


1 Apol. I. 66. 


3 Adv. Marc. iv. 40. 


3 De mysteriis. 9, 52. 



56 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

A different opinion has been put forward from time to time, both before 
and after the Council of Trent, which pronounced no formal decision on 
the subject, but allowed to be inferred that the words of institution were 
also those of consecration. Pope Innocent III thought that Christ per¬ 
formed the transubstantiation by a purely interior act, and that it was only 
after the transubstantiation had been effected that He gave the Eucharistic 
species to the apostles, saying “ This is my body,” “ This is my blood,” — 
words uttered in order that priests should thenceforth use them for the 
purpose of consecration. Thus on the lips of Christ the words were merely 
declarative and perceptive, not operative or effective, although they are 
operative when pronounced by His representatives. Some theologians have 
gone even further, and have supposed that priests also effect the transub¬ 
stantiation, not by pronouncing the words of institution, but by an act of 
prayer, the so-called epiklesis, or else that the epiklesis together with the 
words of institution form at least an essential part of the Eucharistic con¬ 
secration. By epiklesis is meant a prayer addressed to God the Father, 
beseeching Him to send down the Holy Ghost to transform bread and wine 
into the Body and Blood of Christ. 1 

In many of the oriental liturgies an epiklesis of this kind occurs after 
and not before the words of institution, and the same is the case in some 
western liturgies also. The theologians of the Roman Church, who have 
regarded the act of prayer as either the whole of the consecration, or at 
least as an essential part of it, consider that the third prayer preceding the 
words of institution is the epiklesis (Quam oblationem tu Deus . . .). 
The Canon of the Roman Mass formerly also contained the epiclese. Gela- 
sius I testifies to this effect. ( Ep. ad Elpidium.) It probably was removed 
by him. According to some, however, it was essentially changed into the 
Oration Supplices. The question of its place in the former Canon is con¬ 
nected with the question of what changes the Canon underwent by Gela- 
sius, and in the post-Gelasian time. 2 To the Supplices theologians ascribed, 
if not an exclusive, at least a partial consecrative power. Since the 17th 
century, the schismatic Greeks, under the leadership of the Metropolitan 
of Kiew, Petrus Mogilas (whose confessio fidei orthodoxa became the 
norm), have universally ascribed to the epiclesis the exclusive power of 
consecration, and have raised the doctrine to a dogma. At the Council of 
Florence the question of the epiklesis in the Greek liturgy came under dis¬ 
cussion, and the Greek bishops present at the Council made the follow¬ 
ing verbal declaration on July 5th, 1439, after Bessarion, Archbishop of 
Nicea, subsequently Cardinal, had signed the decree of union, and before 
its solemn promulgation on the next day: Quoniam ab omnibus sanctis 
doctoribus ecclesiae, praesertim ab illo beato Joanne Chrysostomo, qui 
nobis notissimus est, audimus, verba dominica esse ilia, quae mutant et 
transsubstantiant panem et vinum in corpus verum Christi et sanguinem, 
et quod ilia verba Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis ha- 
bent, nos ipsi sanctum doctorem et illius sententiam sequimur de necessi¬ 
tate. Thus the Greeks, referring to St. John Chrysostom, professed their 
belief that Christ’s words of institution alone possessed power to effect 
transubstantiation. Pope Eugenius IV makes a similar declaration in his 
instruction to the Armenians: Forma hujus sacramenti sunt verba Salva¬ 
toris, quibus hoc conficit sacramentum. 

1 De s. alteris mysterio. 4, 6. 

2 Compare A. Fortescue, The Mass, 1912, pp. 402-407; Duchesne, Ori- 
gines, p. 207 seq. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 57 

At the Last Supper Jesus performed an act of sacrifice and 
gave the apostles sacrificial food to eat. The celebration of the 
Last Supper was closely connected with the Paschal feast, 
which consisted, as we have already seen, of very definite food, 
prescribed by Yahweh, and was regarded by the Jews as a 
most sacred and solemn banquet. This intimate connection 
between the Eucharist and the Jewish Pasch would inevitably 
suggest that a kind of sacrificial food was given to the disciples 
at the Last Supper. The idea that the Eucharist was a 
sacrificial feast gained strength from the fact that Jesus rep¬ 
resented His body and blood as distinct, when He gave them 
to the apostles under the forms of bread and wine. When He 
said: “ This is my body,” “ this is my blood,” the apostles, being 
Jews by birth, and acquainted with the Old Testament theory 
of sacrifice, would see that He intended His body and blood 
to be regarded as a sacrifice; that He offered them both, and 
therefore had mystically performed a sacrificial act, for the 
essence of the sacrifice required the flesh and blood to be sepa¬ 
rated, and the latter to be poured out. In the celebration of 
the Eucharist, this separation of the Body and Blood, and the 
outpouring of the latter were sacramental and mystical, and 
consisted in the fact that Jesus represented His body and blood 
as distinct, the one under the form of bread, and the other 
under that of wine, and that He gave them to the apostles 
under these forms. The physical separation of Christ’s flesh 
and blood took place on the following day, when He was 
crucified. 

Lastly, the words accompanying our Lord’s action plainly 
revealed its sacrificial character. Christ’s body was “broken” 
and “ given ” for the apostles; His blood was “ shed ” for them 
and for many “unto remission of sins.” These words refer 
primarily and directly to the Eucharist celebrated in Jerusa¬ 
lem; they must not be understood simply as meaning that 
Christ gave His body to the apostles for them to eat and His 
blood for them to drink, but they proclaim at the same time the 
sacrificial character of the ceremony. At the consecration 
Jesus did not say that the bread was given and the blood shed 
for the apostles, i.e., that they might partake thereof, but for 
their sake, on their behalf. Moreover, the words themselves 
were those used technically in speaking of sacrifice. Non 


58 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

intelligi potest, effundi sanguinem et dari corpus ad bibendum 
et comedendum tanquam sacramentum, quia hoc jam dixerat 
neque dixit vobis, sed pro vobis f scl. datur et effunditur Deo, 
quod proprie est sacriftcii. 1 The addition of the words “ for 
you ”—“ for many ” 2 indicates that the Body and Blood of 
Christ, offered as a sacrifice to God the Father at the moment 
of consecration, were an expiatory sacrifice offered expressly 
to effect the remission of sins. Now the Eucharist was a 
sacrifice only with reference to the Sacrifice of the Cross, antici¬ 
pated by the sacrificial act of the Supper Room. Only the re¬ 
mission of sins is mentioned as an effect of the Eucharistic 
sacrifice because sinful man feels a desire for release from the 
heavy burden of sin and guilt, and because the positive effects 
of salvation accompany the remission of sin. 3 

According to the definite teaching of Holy Scripture, Christ 
is the Lamb slain to take away the sins of the whole world, and 
hence some commentators take the words “ for many ” as 
equivalent to “ for all.” It is more probable, however, that our 
Lord, in using these words, was not thinking so much of the 
objective result of His sacrifice as of the subjective appropria¬ 
tion of that benefit by mankind: non tarn sacriftcii suMcientiam 
respicere videtur, quam ejus fructum. 4 

The sacrificial character of the Eucharistic action furnishes 
convincing evidence in support of the theory that Jesus really 
changed bread and wine into His body and blood by means of 
the word of consecration. Only if we start with the assump¬ 
tion that Jesus by means of the act of consecration really 
changed the bread and wine into His flesh and blood, can we 
declare that He performed an act of sacrifice when He said: 
“ This is my body, which is offered,” “ This is my blood, which 
is shed.” Christ’s true Body and true Blood, and not anything 
merely symbolizing them, could alone be sacrificed and alone 
possess power to make satisfaction for sin; only a genuine 
sacrifice, and not a mere type of the same, could really procure 
remission of sins. We arrive at a similar conclusion if we 
consider the fact that St. Luke and St. Paul speak of the 

1 Jansenius. 

2 The prepositions rep and rrepl have not in this connection the same force : 
vnep emphasizes the idea of substitution, tt epl that of satisfaction. 

3 Compare Matthew i. 21. 

4 Jansenius. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


59 


contents of the chalice not merely as the blood of sacrifice, but 
as a new testament, i.e., as blood, the shedding’ of which con¬ 
cludes a new covenant, and which is the gift of this newly 
established contract. This designation refers to the consecra¬ 
tion of the old covenant by means of the blood of animals 
killed in sacrifice. When the law had been read aloud to the 
Israelites, Moses took blood and sprinkled it over the people, 
saying: hie est sanguis foederis, quod pepigit Do minus vobis- 
cum super cunctis sermonibus his. This allusion to what took 
place at the foundation of the old covenant makes it impossible 
to assign a symbolical interpretation to the passage under dis¬ 
cussion : colligitur, Christum verum dedisse sanguinem ; op- 
ponit enim sanguinem suum sanguini vitulorum } tanquam 
figurae veritatem. 

There is another weighty reason for adopting the theory 
suggested. In the New Testament the Christian Pasch is 
represented as the antitype and realization of that which was 
foreshadowed by the Jewish Paschal sacrifice and supper. If 
Christ, who came to fulfill the law and the prophets had 
offered, immediately before His death, something that only 
symbolized His body and blood, and had given the same to the 
apostles, He would have established a meaningless rite in place 
of the symbolical sacrifice and acts in use among the Jews, and 
this would have been completely at variance with the purpose of 
His coming into the world: Et sane, cum agnus paschalis (sc. 
Judaeorum) figura fuerit Christi in cruce offerendi, ut patet 
Jo. xix. 36, si corpus non est aliud f nisi figura corporis in cruce 
offerendi, pro fee to figurant figurae substituit, obscuram evi- 
dentissime, cum tamen venerit figuris finem imp onere. 1 

An argument for the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic 
action could perhaps be taken from the words, “Do this in 
commemoration of Me.” Vide Eccl. Review, vol. 45, p. 363, 
where H. J. Heuser states that the Hebrew or Aramaic equiva¬ 
lent of the Greek term &.vaiivrj(TLs is given in Fuerst’s Hebrew and 
Chaldee Lexicon as “azkarah,” an expression which in sacri¬ 
ficial language means a meal offering remembrance. This is 
a good answer to T. K. Abbot’s statement that a sacrificial 
meaning cannot be obtained from avafivrja ls any more than 


1 Jansenius. 



6 o 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


from 7rotetT€. Not from the Greek but from the equivalent 
ritual Hebrew term, Num. v. 15. Thus we may interpret: 
“ Do this as a memorial-sacrifice of me.” Very significant also 
is what Heuser quotes of Catherine Emmerich, how she gave 
the words as “ Do this as a sacrifice of me.” 

It has been asked whether Jesus Himself partook of the Eucharistic 
supper or not; whether in the Supper Room at Jerusalem He ate His flesh 
and drank His blood under the forms of bread and wine. Some writers 
answer this question affirmatively, e.g., St. Jerome, 1 St. John Chrysostom, 2 
and St. Thomas Aquinas; 3 one liturgy, too, contains a reference to our 
Lord’s participation in the Eucharist. From a purely exegetical standpoint 
this view gains weight from the fact that, according to St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, immediately after institution of the Holy Eucharist and the 
handing of the chalice to the apostles, our Lord said: “ I say to you, I will 
not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I 
shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” 4 * This statement 
is assumed to refer to the Eucharist chalice, and to indicate that Jesus 
drank from it Himself and then passed it to the disciples. But our Lord’s 
expression, “ this fruit of the vine,” does not seem to refer to the Eucha¬ 
ristic chalice at all, and the improbability of this interpretation is increased 
by the fact that in St Luke’s gospel this utterance of our Lord’s stands 
before the institution of the Eucharist. 8 St. Luke as a rule adheres most 
closely to the chronological order of events, and it may well be that he 
recorded this utterance in the original place, and by setting it earlier he indi¬ 
cates that it refers, not to the Eucharistic chalice, but to one of the cups 
drunk at the Paschal supper. If this supposition be correct, our Lord 
availed Himself of the opportunity offered Him by the Paschal festivities 
to speak of the full realization in heaven of the joys typified by the Pasch, 
and He did so in language motived by His surroundings, and familiar to 
the Jews. 6 * 

In the Church Militant on earth the Holy Eucharist is a prelude to the 
perfect and endless festival of the Church Triumphant in heaven. The 
theory that Christ’s words as recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark re¬ 
ferred to the fourth cup at the Paschal supper is hardly tenable, for it is 
most improbable that Jesus, after substituting the reality for the type that 
had represented it, concluded the Eucharistic ceremonial by mixing and 
handing round a cup of wine in accordance with the Jewish ritual. There 
are also other considerations opposed to the theory that our Lord took part 
in the Eucharistic supper. Not only is there no indication in the gospel of 


1 Epist. ad Hedib, quaest, II: nec Moyses dedit nobis panem verum, sed 
Dominus Jesus; ipse conviva et convivium, ipse comedens et qui comeditur; 
compare Knabenbauer, Comm, in Matth. ii. 437. 

2 In Matth.hom. 82. 

3 Summa iii. 81, 1. 

4 Matthew xxvi. 2g; compare Mark xiv. 25. 

6 Luke xxii. 18. 

8 Jansenius: Venuste transit Dominus a signification vini propria ad 

metaphoricam . . . ut significet, se in regno caelorum eum illis inebrian- 

dum esse vino coelestium deliciarum ab ubertate domus Dei et de torrente 
voluptatis ejus esse potandum (compare Ps. xxxv). 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 61 


His having done so, but, if we assume that Jesus consecrated the bread and 
wine by means of the words of institution, the account given by the sacred 
writers seems incapable of bearing such an interpretation. All agree in 
stating that Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to 
His disciples, saying: “ Take and eat, this is my body.” . . . The opinion 
expressed by some of the Fathers that Jesus Himself partook of the Eucha¬ 
rist was one of the reasons why theologians assume that He consecrated the 
bread and wine by a previous, interior act of prayer, and not by the words 
of institution. 

The Apostles as priests of the New Covenant. At the 

Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist as a sacrifice and 
Sacrament of the New Covenant that He established, and at the 
same time He appointed the apostles to be priests, that they 
might perform the Eucharistic action. During this most holy 
evening He spoke of the interior and essential connection 
between the sacrifice of the Eucharist and that of the Cross. 
When He said to the apostles: “ Do this in commemoration of 
me,” He both instituted the holy Eucharist and made the 
apostles priests, empowered to offer it. St. Luke records these 
words as uttered at the transubstantiation of the bread, but St. 
Paul inserts them a second time at the consecration of the wine. 
The repetition emphasizes the importance of the commission 
given to the apostles, in addition to throwing a significant light 
upon one point in it. Jansenius states very clearly the general 
connection between this commission and the action that pre¬ 
ceded it: mens mea non est, nt hoc semel a me et vobis duntaxat 
fiat, sed ut perpetuo in ecclesia frequentetur. The word “ this ” 
must be understood as an allusion to the whole action of our 
Lord at the Eucharistic supper, to the consecration of bread and 
wine as well as to giving the apostles the sacrificial body of 
Christ to eat, and His blood to drink. There is in the context 
nothing to justify any limitation to this allusion. As the 
imperative “ Do ” is a command given by our Lord, the apostles 
were commissioned to perform in future the sacrificial act and 
to administer the Sacrament, as Jesus had just done. These 
sacerdotal functions on the part of the apostles were to be 
discharged in commemoration of Christ. 

A twofold question presents itself here: To what extent 
was the Eucharist a commemoration of Christ, and for how 
long did He intend its celebration to be continued ? The answer 
is supplied by St. Paul, who was instructed by our Lord 


62 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Himself on this subject: “As often as you shall eat this bread 
and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, 
until He come.” 1 As the Lord’s coming means His second 
advent at the end of the world, the celebration of this com¬ 
memoration of Him is to continue until then. It follows also 
that our Lord’s commission was not given only to the apostles, 
but also to their successors, the priests of His Church. If we 
take St. Paul’s words in connection with those of Christ, we 
perceive further that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the 
Eucharistic act of sacrifice and the Eucharistic feast, is in 
itself, ipso facto, a showing forth of the death of Christ. The 
words of Holy Scripture are opposed to the explanation that 
the apostles when offering the sacrifice, and the faithful when 
receiving the Eucharist, were at the same time to remember 
Christ’s death or to utter words expressive of such remem¬ 
brance. 2 We have a clear and definite statement of the effect 
that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the administration of the 
Sacrament are in themselves a commemoration of our Lord’s 
death on the cross. These words therefore express the interior 
and essential connection between the Eucharistic sacrifice and 
the sacrifice of the Cross, and the connection is brought out 
in the Catholic doctrine regarding the relation existing between 
the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross. 

An analysis of our Lord’s commission to the apostles and of 
St. Paul’s elucidation of it reveals the following doctrines: 
(i) The apostles were ordered themselves to do, and to con¬ 
tinue doing in the person of their successors, until the end 
of the world, what Christ had just done in the supper room 
at Jerusalem, viz., to perform the Eucharistic sacrifice and 
to administer the Sacrament. (2) As the sacrifice and the 
priesthood are essentially connected, since to sacrifice is one of 
the priest’s chief functions, our Lord’s words: “Do this in 
commemoration of me,” made the apostles priests, endowed 
with priestly authority and bound to offer the Eucharistic 
sacrifice. Hence the Council of Trent declared: Si quis dixerit, 
illis verbis: “ hoc facite in meant commemorationem ” Christum 
non instituisse apostolos sacerdotes; aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi 
aliique sacerdotes offerrent corpus et sanguinem suum: an - 


1 1 Cor. xi. 26. 


3 Compare Corn, a Lap. ad loc. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 63 

athema sit . 1 The call to join the apostolic band included the 
call to discharge the functions of apostles, but as during our 
Lord’s life on earth the apostles were in course of preparation 
for their office, they did not receive authority to use their 
powers until just before their Master’s death. (3) In the 
Holy Eucharist Christ offered a true sacrifice, which anticipated 
the sacrifice of the Cross, and the Church teaches that the 
Eucharist is not a nuda commemoratio sacrificii in cruce 
peracti 2 but a sacrificium comment or ativum: not a simple 
memorial, a sacred action at or through which the sacrificial 
death of Christ is recalled to memory, but a commemorative 
sacrifice, a real sacrificial action, through which the sacrifice 
of the Cross is made truly present ( repraesentari ) 3 and its salu¬ 
tary effects applied to our souls. A fuller discussion of the 
doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice would carry us beyond 
the scope of the present work. 

As the Eucharistic sacrifice instituted by Christ is offered 
at the celebration of Holy Mass, it will be well to examine the 
liturgical formulae, used at the consecration, in their relation 
to the words of institution as recorded by the sacred writers. 


Consecration of the Bread 
Introduction 

Qui pridie postquam pateretur ac- 
cepit panem in sanctas ac vener- 
abiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis 
in coelum ad te Deum patrem suum 
omnipotentem tibi gratias agens 
benedixit fregit deditque discipulis 
suis dicens: accipite et manducate 
ex hoc omnes. 

Words of Consecration 
Hoc est enim Corpus meum. 


Consecration of the Chalice 
Introduction 

Simili modo postquam coenatum 
est accipiens et hunc praeclarum 
calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles 
manus item tibi gratias agens bene¬ 
dixit deditque discipulis suis di¬ 
cens : accipite et bibite ex eo omnes. 


Words of Consecration 

Hie est enim calix sanguinis mei, 
novi et aeterni testamenti, mys- 
terium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro 
multis effundetur in remissionem 
peccatorum. 

Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in 
mei memoriam facietis. 


The liturgical formulae, that introduce the act of consecration, will be 
seen, when compared with the Biblical texts, to contain some additions and 


1 Sess. 22, can. II de sacrificio Missae; compare can. I ejusdem sess. 

2 Cone. Trid. /. c. can. III. 8 Cone. Trid. 1 . c. can. I. 





64 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

different wordings. The indication of time qui pridie postquam pateretur 
is parallel to that given by St. Paul: in qua node tradebatur; in this context 
there is no indication of time in the gospels. The words in sandas ac ven- 
erabiles manus suas et elevatis oculis in coelum ad te Deum patrem suam 
omnipotentem are an addition to the gospel narrative. The expression 
“ lifting up His eyes to heaven ” refers to the account given by the synoptic 
writers of the miraculous feeding of the multitudes. 1 * In the liturgy the 
verbs gratias agere and benedicere are both used, whereas St. Matthew and 
St. Mark have only benedicere, and St. Luke and St. Paul only gratias 
agere; moreover gratias agens is rendered more explicit by the addition of 
tibi, sc. Deo patri omnipotenti. The Biblical manducate is amplified by the 
words ex hoc omnes. The Greek bsavrcos is rendered simili modo in the 
Roman and Ambrosian liturgies, but similiter in the manuscript and printed 
editions of the Vulgate. The liturgy translates ^era t 6 denrpijaai postquam 
coenatum est, but the Biblical text reads postquam coenavit. The liturgy in¬ 
serts praeclarum before calicem, taking the adjectives from Ps. xxii. 5: 
calix meus inebrians quam praeclarus est. 

The liturgical form of consecration for the bread is identical with the 
words of institution recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, except that in 
the latter the word enim is absent. St. Luke and St. Paul give additional 
words, that emphasize the sacrificial character of the act, and at the same 
time order its repetition, but these are omitted in the liturgy. The form of 
consecration for the wine differs from the words of institution recorded by 
the sacred writers; it is however compiled on the lines of these words, al¬ 
though it contains two additions. A short analysis will show how it is 
made up. The form: hie est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni tes- 
tamenti is derived partly from St. Luke and St. Paul, and partly from St. 
Matthew and St. Mark; hie est enim calix are words taken from St. Luke 
and St. Paul, with the exception of enim, but the words that follow in the 
account given by these two writers, novum testamentum in sanguine meo, 
have them modified with reference to those recorded by St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, thus becoming the more intelligible form: sanguinis mei novi 
testamenti. There is nothing in the Greek or in the printed version of the 
Vulgate to justify the insertion of et aeterni; the two words occur, however, 
in the Codex Veronensis, an I tala manuscript of the fourth or fifth cen¬ 
tury. The new covenant, established by Christ when He celebrated the 
Eucharist, may aptly be termed “ eternal.” The old dispensation was pre¬ 
paratory in character and had therefore a limited duration, but the reign 
of the Messiah, ordained from the beginning, is the most perfect dispensa¬ 
tion of God, and will last forever. The other addition, mysterium fidei, 
occurs in St. Paul’s epistles 3 but not in the gospels. The Latin word mys¬ 
terium, derived from the Greek fivarripiov , occurs frequently in the New 
Testament in various contexts. According to Biblical usage it designates 
the divine truths that by their nature and essence are concealed from man, 
and made known to him only by divine revelation. The allusion here is to 
the mystery of the real presence of Christ’s blood under the form of wine. 
This is called a mystery of faith, because it is only by faith that man can 
grasp it, and because this doctrine forms a constituent part of our faith. 
Sacramenta, quae vides in altari, aestimanda sunt non specie sed fide. 


1 Matthew xiv. 19; Mark vi. 41; Luke ix. 16. 

* 1 Tim. iii. 9; compare the similar expression pietatis sacramentum (i.e. 

mysterium ). 




PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 65 

Many Catholic theologians think that the words mysterium fidei were ut¬ 
tered by our Lord at the Last Supper; according to the Roman Catechism 
they are a matter of tradition, which catholicae veritatis interpres et custos 
nos docuit. Pope Innocent III thought that they were inserted into the 
liturgy from St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy. 

The next words, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur, are taken from 
St. Luke and St. Matthew conjointly, and the conclusion, in remissionem 
peccatorum, from St. Matthew. Our Lord’s command to repeat His act, 
placed by St. Luke after the transubstantiation of the bread, and by St. 
Paul also after that of the wine, is mentioned once only in the Canon, at 
the end of the Eucharistic act. The form of words approximates closely to 
those recorded in the second place by St. Paul, but its position has given 
rise to some slight modifications. Instead of the singular hoc , the liturgy 
has haec, referring to the transubstantiation of both bread and wine. St. 
Paul writes: hoc facite, quotiescunque bibetis, referring only to the conse¬ 
crated wine, but in the Canon, as the reference is more general, we find 
haec, quotiescunque feceritis. . . . Lastly, instead of the Vulgate reading, 
in meant commemorationem, the liturgy has the better and more suitable 
form in mei memoriam. 

From the differences between the liturgical wording and that of the gos¬ 
pels, and from the different translations of Greek expressions (bsavru s, 
simili modo, similiter; pera rb denrvrjocu , postquam coenatum est, postquam 
coenavit; eis ri)v e/xijv dv&nvT)<riv f in meam commemorationem , in mei memo¬ 
riam) we may infer with certainty that the liturgical text is very old, and 
dates from the apostolic age, as subsequently no one would have dared to 
make the slightest alteration in the text of the Bible. 


V. The Treason of Judas Foretold; the 
Traitor’s Departure 


Matthew xxvi. 21-25 

21. And whilst they were eating, 
he said: Amen I say to you, that 
one of you is about to betray me. 

22. And they being very much 
troubled, began every one to say: Is 
it I, Lord? 

23. But he answering said: He 
that dippeth his hand with me in 
the dish, he shall betray me. 

24. The son of man indeed goeth, 
as it is written of him: but wo to 
that man, by whom the son of man 
shall be betrayed: It were better 
for him, if that man had not been 
bom. 

25. And Judas that betrayed him, 
answering said: Is it I, Rabbi? He 
saith to him: Thou hast said it. 


Mark xiv. 18-21 

18. And when they were at table 
and eating Jesus saith: Amen I say 
to you, one of you that eateth with 
me shall betray me. 

19. But they began to be sorrow¬ 
ful, and to say to him one by one: 
Is it I? 

20. Who saith to them: One of 
the twelve, who dippeth with me 
his hand in the dish. 

21. And the son of man indeed 
goeth, as it is written of him: but 
wo to that man by whom the son 
of man shall be betrayed. It were 
better for him, if that man had not 
been born. 



66 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Luke xxii. 21-23 

21. But yet behold, the hand of 
him that betrayeth me is with me on 
the table. 

22. And the son of man indeed 
goeth, according to that which is 
determined: but yet wo to that man 
by whom he shall be betrayed. 

23. And they began to inquire 
among themselves which of them it 
was that should do this thing. 


John xiii. 10, 11, 18, 19, 21-30 

10. Jesus saith to him: He that 
is washed, needed not but to wash 
his feet, but is clean wholly. And 
you are clean, but not all. 

11. For he knew who he was that 
would betray him; therefore he 
said: You are not all clean. 

18. I speak not of you all: I 
know whom I have chosen: but that 
the scripture may be fulfilled. He 
that eateth bread with me, shall lift 
up his heel against me. 

19. At present I tell you, before 
it come to pass: that when it shall 
come to pass, you may believe that 
I am he. 

21. When Jesus had said these 
things, he was troubled in spirit: 
and he testified, and said: Amen, 
amen I say to you, one of you shall 
betray me. 

22. The disciples therefore looked 
one upon another, doubting to 
whom he spoke. 

23. Now there was leaning on 
Jesus’s bosom one of his disciples 
whom Jesus loved. 

24. Simon Peter therefore beck¬ 
oned to him, and said to him: Who 
is it of whom he speaketh? 

25. He therefore leaning on the 
breast of Jesus saith to him: Lord, 
who is it? 

26. Jesus answered: He it is to 
whom I shall reach bread dipped. 
And when he had dipped the bread, 
he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son 
of Simon. 

27. And after the morsel, satan en¬ 
tered into him. And Jesus said to 
him : That which thou dost, do quickly. 

28. Now no man at the table knew 
to what purpose he said this unto him. 

29. For some thought, because 
Judas had the purse, that Jesus 
had said to him: Buy those things 
which we have need of for the fes¬ 
tival day: or that he should give 
something to the poor. 

30. He therefore having received 
the morsel, went out immediately. 
And it was night. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 67 

This sad story is recorded by all four evangelists, very briefly 
by St. Luke, and most fully by St. John, who notes the exact 
sequence of events. The first allusion to His approaching 
betrayal was made in general terms by our Lord as He washed 
the apostles’ feet and said: “ You are clean, but not all.” 1 
The evangelist tells us that in these words Christ referred to 
Judas’ treacherous designs, of which He was well aware. 2 A 
clearer allusion to His betrayal occurs in our Lord’s explana¬ 
tion of the “ washing of feet.” After telling the apostles that 
they would be blessed if they practised humility and charity, 
He said: “ I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen. 
But [I chose Judas] that the scripture may be fulfilled: 'He 
that eateth bread with me shall lift up his heel against me.’ ” 
These words are important for several reasons. Our Lord lays 
stress upon the fact that His betrayal was foretold in the Old 
Testament. The words are a free quotation from Ps. xl. 10, 
and are only indirectly Messianic; their immediate reference is 
to King David’s sorrow over the disloyalty of his friend and 
companion Achitophel. 3 When regarded as prophetic, we may 
say that they were fulfilled when Judas treacherously kissed his 
Lord and Master and handed Him over to His enemies. The 
words show, moreover, that Jesus knew the character of each 
apostle, and, being aware that Judas was a traitor, was not 
deceived by him. They explain, too, why Judas was called to be 
an apostle, although our Lord knew beforehand that he would 
betray Him. 

The accounts given by the evangelists prove that it is impossible to sup¬ 
pose our Lord to have been outwitted by Judas, for during the Last Supper 
He foretold His approaching betrayal and indicated the traitor. St. John 
tells us plainly that from the beginning of His intercourse with Judas, 
Jesus knew “ who he was that would betray Him; ” 4 and a full year before 
the Passion, had spoken of him as a devil, 6 i.e., a man of diabolical dispo¬ 
sition. Our Saviour chose the apostles to be closely associated with Him 
during His life on earth, to be prepared for the future work, and to con¬ 
tinue His own task on earth after His departure hence; we may well ask, 
therefore, why He chose Judas to be an apostle, in spite of having power 
to read all hearts, and in spite of knowing that Judas would betray Him. 
Our Lord was careful to state His reason. He chose Judas, fully realizing 
his baseness, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled which foretold 
His betrayal by a friend. God had decreed that, as a climax to His mental 


8 2 Kings xv. 31 seqq. 
5 John v. 71. 


1 John xiii. 10. 

4 John vi. 65. 


3 John xiii. 11. 



68 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


suffering, our Lord should endure among His intimate followers the pres¬ 
ence of a man of the .most horrible and hypocritical character, and should 
at last be betrayed by Him to His enemies. 

Our Saviour was greatly moved by the thought of being 
betrayed. The horrible treachery, and the fact that His 
betrayer was a man called to the highest office, made a pro¬ 
found impression upon our Lord, and it was under the influence 
of powerful emotion that He solemnly and emphatically de¬ 
clared : “ One of you shall betray me.” Each successive 
prediction of the betrayal is more definite: the first time Jesus 
said that not all the apostles were clean; the second time He 
used the words of the Psalmist, and announced that one belong¬ 
ing to the inner circle of His followers would “ lift up his heel ” 
against Him; the third time He complained that He was about 
to be betrayed by one of those whom He had chosen to be His 
closest friends, whom He had loaded with benefits and called 
to an exalted office. This precise announcement of the impend¬ 
ing treachery was intended by Christ to furnish the apostles 
with fresh evidence of His omniscience, and to convince them 
yet more firmly that their Master, thus betrayed, was indeed 
the Messiah. 1 A last solemn warning was given to the traitor 
in this repeated prediction of his sinful design, in order that he 
might repent, whilst he still had time. 2 

The effect of the announcement that the traitor belonged to 
the apostolic band was overwhelming. The details given by 
the evangelists, regarding the apostles' behavior after this dis¬ 
closure, may be arranged in the following order. According 
to St. Matthew, they are at first “ very much troubled; ” then, 
as St. John says, they “looked one upon another,” doubting to 
whom their Master spoke; then, as St. Luke tells us, they began 
to discuss the matter; and lastly, as we see from St. Matthew 
and St. Mark, each one turned to the Lord and asked: “ Is 
it I?” 3 They did not doubt the truth of this disturbing an¬ 
nouncement, but they were uncertain and embarrassed as to 
who the traitor was. It seems strange that they did not at 
once suspect Judas, who had frequently revealed his real 


1 John xiii. 19. 

2 Jerome ad Matth. xxvi. 21: Qui de passione praedixerat, et de proditore 
praedicit, dans locum poenitentiae. 

8 Compare Bynaeus, I, 7, 7. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 69 

character, especially in his use of the money entrusted to him, 
and quite recently when Mary anointed Jesus in Bethany. 1 So 
great, however, was their consciousness of their own frailty, 
that they did not dare to sit in judgment upon one of their 
fellows, and although their consciences acquitted them of 
treacherous designs, they dreaded the possibility of falling into 
evil. 2 

Only St. Matthew and St. Mark record our Lord’s answer to 
the apostles’ questions: “ One of the twelve, who dippeth with 
me his hand in the dish, he shall betray me.” In order to 
understand these words, we must notice that the Jewish 
Paschal ceremonial required a bowl of vinegar to be placed 
upon the table, so that the bitter herbs might be dipped into it. 
This bowl is probably the “ dish ” to which our Lord referred, 
not the other bowl, containing the Charoseth. Opinions are 
divided as to whether Christ in these words designated the 
traitor in general terms, as standing in so close a relation to 
Himself, or whether at this point He indicated him to the other 
apostles. The subsequent course of events, which St. John 
records most precisely, makes the former view the more 
probable, and in this case our Lord’s words mean: “ One of 
those who now celebrate with me this ardently desired feast, 
will betray me.” 3 

The second and third allusions to the betrayal draw atten¬ 
tion to two circumstances that intensify the enormity and 
horror of Judas’ action: the exalted position occupied by the 
traitor, and the important occasion on which he planned to 
execute his design. 

Some commentators regard "Christ’s words as indicating with more or 
less precision who the traitor was. Some think that His meaning was: The 
traitor is one of the three or four apostles who dipped their bitter herbs 
into the same bowl with me at the Paschal supper; 4 others assume that 
Judas in his shameless audacity alone of all the apostles dipped his herbs 
into the bowl with Jesus, after our Lord had announced His impending 


1 John xii. i seq. 

2 Jerome ad Matth. xxvi. 22: Et certe noverant undecim . apostoli; quod 
nihil tale contra Dominum cogitarent; sed plus credunt magistro quam sibi; 
pertimescentes fragilitatem suam tristes interrogant de peccato, cujus con- 
scientiam non habebant. 

3 Compare Bynaeus, I, 7, 4, 11; Jansenius: Qui eadem mecum mensa et 
eodem cibo uti solet. Et ita haec verba non magis manifestant proditorem, 
quam antea, sed tantum exaggerant scelus. 

4 Maid, ad Matth. xxvi. 23. 



7 o THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

betrayal; the rest, overwhelmed with fear and horror, had withdrawn their 
hands. 1 

Immediately after the third prediction of His betrayal 
Jesus made a remark intended to console the loyal disciples 
and to admonish Judas: “ The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it 
is written of him; but wo to that man, by whom the Son of 
Man shall be betrayed; it were better for him if that man had 
not been bom.” Our Lord’s solicitude for His followers again 
reveals itself here; in order to strengthen their belief in Him as 
the Messiah, He points out that His death formed part of the 
divine scheme of salvation, and had been foretold in the 
Scriptures. The first of these statements is recorded by St. 
Luke, the second by St. Matthew and St. Mark. 

Jesus here proclaimed the same truth with regard to the Old Testament 
as He taught the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, viz., that He must 
tread the path of suffering in order to return to His Father and enter the 
joys of heaven. 2 There indeed He speaks simply of His departure from the 
world and of going to the Father, but the context shows plainly that He 
was looking forward to His Passion, which would follow His betrayal by 
Judas. At the same time the verb used denotes the ready acquiescence in 
and obedience to His Father’s will with which He entered upon His suffer¬ 
ings. 3 Moreover, He gave Judas one more proof of His love, by pointing 
out the terrible punishment to be inflicted upon the traitor: poena praedici- 
tur, ut quem pudor non vicerat, corrigant denuntiata snpplicia . 4 * Our 
Lord’s words, “It were better for him, if that man had not been born,” 
show that the most fearful penalty awaited him, a penalty that would last 
forever: longe enim satius est non esse, quam esse ad hoc tantum, ut sem¬ 
per miserrimus sit et perpetim ardeat . 6 The emphatic use of that man is 
significant, — the man who has made up his mind to commit so abominable 
an action. Light is thrown upon what is said in this passage regarding 
Judas and the enormity of his sin, by a reference to our Lord’s last prayer 
for His disciples. In that prayer Judas is called “the son of perdition,” a 
name given elsewhere in the New Testament to Anti-Christ, and to no one 
else. 


Simon Peter desired to know who the traitor was, probably 
in order that he might more easily and effectually defend his 
Master against the treachery. He tried to obtain definite in- 


Jer. ad Matth. xxvi. 23: Judas ceteris contristatis et retrahentibus 
mmiim et mterdicenHbus cibos on suo temeritote et impudentia qua Pro. 
diturus erat ettam manum cum magistro mittit in parobsidem 

a Luke xxiv. 25-27. y 

’ MM.- (Jhristus indicat ( sell, verbo “vadit ») se non vi ex hoc mundo 
exbelh, sed sponte sua exire. Ul/ 

4 Jerome, ad loc. 

6 Corn, a Lap., and others. 




PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 71 

formation through St. John, who was leaning on Jesus’ bosom. 
The fourth gospel alone records this episode. 

In order to understand this account, we must study the archaeology of 
the subject. In course of time the Jews had adopted the Persian custom of 
lying at table, i.e., of resting the left elbow on a cushion, and turning the 
upper part of the body toward the table, whilst the feet were stretched out 
behind. This position was the usual one among Jews of the upper classes, 
especially on festal occasions, but even the poor assumed it when eating 
the Pasch, as it suggested the liberty gained by their departure from Egypt. 
Couches were arranged at three sides of the dining table, the fourth side 
being left accessible to the servants; hence not only the table with the 
couches, but also the whole room was called the triclinium. We may prob¬ 
ably assume that at the last supper Jesus with Peter and John occupied the 
couch facing the short end of the table, whilst the other apostles, five on 
each side, lay on couches arranged beside the longer sides of the table. The 
place of each guest was regulated by his rank. The person highest in im¬ 
portance (Jesus) was in the middle, the second (Peter) was behind Him, 
further along the couch, so as to be able to stretch his right hand over the 
table; the third (John) lay in front of, and beside, the first, so that St. 
John rested on our Lord’s bosom (—in sinu recumbere). 

After the prediction of the betrayal, the apostles looked at 
one another, and John raised himself and looked at Peter, 
who seized the opportunity to make him a sign, and to whisper 
that he should ask Jesus to name the traitor. John lay down 
again on his Master’s bosom, and asked, “Lord, who is it?” 
Jesus answered, “ He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped.” 
And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Is¬ 
cariot. This episode, recorded by St. John, is not identical 
with that of which St. Matthew and St. Mark 1 give the 
account. The following was probably the order of events: 
According to St. Matthew and St. Mark, Jesus announced to all 
the apostles that one of those at table with Him would betray 
Him. From the fourth gospel we learn how Jesus afterwards 
made known to St. John that Judas was the traitor, and showed 
how the prophetical words “he that eateth bread with me” 
were fully realized in his case, since Judas was not only with 
them at table, but received a morsel of bread specially passed 
to him by his Master. What he received was not a piece of the 
Paschal lamb, but of unleavened bread, which may have been 
wrapped round with bitter herbs, and was dipped in either 
vinegar or the mixture called Charoseth. There are several 
arguments in support of this view. Both the Greek xl/u/iiov 


1 Matthew xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 20. 



72 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


and the Latin buccella mean bread; the Paschal supper, strictly 
so called, ended when the master of the house ate the last 
mouthful of flesh, and this was some time before Jesus handed 
the bread to Judas; moreover, the passage in the Psalm, to which 
reference is made by Christ, favors this interpretation. 

Various answers have been given by the Fathers and the older com¬ 
mentators to the question, Why did our Lord give this piece of bread to 
Judas? St. Augustine 1 is inclined to regard it as a symbol of the traitor’s 
craftiness; others think that by dipping the bread Jesus testified His good¬ 
ness and mercy toward Judas even until the last moment. A few have sug¬ 
gested that the bread was Eucharistic, but as early a writer as St. Augustine 
condemned this opinion as one which could be held by none except a super¬ 
ficial reader of the Biblical text. It is possible that this opinion gave rise to 
the custom that prevailed in a few places until it was condemned by the 
Church, of giving the laity Eucharistic bread which had previously been 
dipped into the chalice. 2 

St. Matthew alone tells us that Judas in his hypocrisy and 
insolence went so far as to ask our Lord whether he were the 
traitor, a question that Jesus answered in the affirmative. In 
harmonizing the various accounts we have to notice that Judas 
probably asked this question immediately after the short con¬ 
versation between our Lord and John, so that Christ’s reply 
was given almost at the same time as He passed the bread to 
Judas. 3 Jansenius, 4 however, thinks that our Lord had 
answered Judas before John spoke, whilst others 5 again assume 
that Judas did not ask whether he were the traitor until after 
he had received the bread. 

Our Lord’s brief conversation with both Judas and John 
was carried on in a whisper, so that the other apostles did not 
hear what was said. After Judas had received the morsel of 
bread Satan entered into him. St. John’s words do not mean 
that Judas was thenceforth possessed by a devil, but that he 
opened his heart completely to diabolical influences, and his 
treacherous purpose developed into a firm resolution which was 
speedily put into action. Jesus said to him : “ That which thou 
dost [i.e., intendest to do], do quickly.” Our Lord, knowing 


1 Tract. 62 in Joann.: Fortassis per panis tinctionem illius significans 
fictionem. Non enim omnia, quae tinguntur, abluuntur, sed ut inficiantur, 
nonnulla tinguntur. 

2 Compare Estius, Annot. ad loc., also Calmet. 

8 So Langen. 

4 In Matthew xxvi. 25. 

5 Maid., Lucas Brug., Corn, a Lap. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 73 

that Judas was resolved to betray Him, used these words to 
show that Judas was a free agent, and that He Himself had no 
fear of death, but on the contrary longed to die, in order to 
secure the salvation of men. At this point Judas quitted the 
Supper Room, and forsook the company of the apostles, hav¬ 
ing become an instrument of the devil. We have already dis¬ 
cussed the spiritual process by which Judas ceased to be an 
apostle and became a devil through the betrayal of his Master. 

It is a much debated point whether Judas left the Supper Room before 
or after the institution of the most holy Eucharist, and, if after, whether 
he, like the other apostles, received Holy Communion. The chief difficulty 
on the subject arises from the fact that St. Matthew and St. Mark record 
the prediction of the betrayal before giving an account of the Last Supper, 
while St. Luke reverses the order of events. The question is whether the 
former evangelists or St. Luke adhere strictly to the chronological sequence. 
Commentators are divided in opinion; the majority of the Fathers and 
earlier writers believe that Judas did not leave the Supper Room until after 
the celebration of the Eucharist, and their reasons for this belief are dis¬ 
cussed very thoroughly by Cornelius a Lapide (ad Matth. xxvi. 20). On 
the other hand, both in the east and in the west a contrary opinion has 
from the earliest period been held by some scholars. According even to 
the Apostolic Constitutions Judas did not receive Holy Communion, for 
they declare that after Jesus had given them the Communion — “Judas was 
not present with us” — they went out to the mount of Olives. 1 Cyrillonas, 
a Syriac writer living at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the 
fifth centuries, in his first homily on Christ’s Pasch, speaks of Judas as 
having quitted the Supper Room before the consecration of the bread and 
wine. 

St. Hilary of Poitiers emphatically excludes the traitor from participa¬ 
tion in the Eucharistic feast; 2 and Pope Innocent III is of the same opin¬ 
ion. 3 They were followed subsequently by other commentators, a list of 
whom is given by Bynaeus 4 and Comely. 5 6 Many who think that Judas re¬ 
ceived Holy Communion, admit that there are good reasons for taking the 
opposite view.® Among modern scholars, the Protestants with hardly an 
exception exclude Judas from the Eucharistic supper, and the same is done 
among Catholic authors by Bishop Laurent, 7 Comely, 8 Knabenbauer, and 
many others. 

In his 62nd tract on St. John’s gospel, however, St. Augustine points out 
the consideration that should guide us in discussing this question; 9 accord- 


1 Const. Apost. v. 14. 

2 In Matth. can. 30, 2: sine quo (sc. Juda ) pascha accepto calice et 
fracto pane conficitur, dignus enim aeternorum sacrament or urn communione 
non fuerat. 

3 De s. altaris mysterio, 4, 13. 

4 De morte Christi, I. 7, 1. 

5 Curs, script, s., libri introd. Ill, 298. 

6 Maid, ad Matth. xxvi. 20. 

7 Das heilige Evang., 636 seqq. 

8 Curs, script, s., libri introd. Ill, 298. 

9 Aug. tract. 62 in Joann.: Intelligendum est, quod jam omnibus eis 



74 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


ing to him the matter is purely exegetical, and turns upon the further ques¬ 
tion whether St. Luke’s account is chronologically accurate or not. The 
latter question must be answered affirmatively. In his introduction St. 
Luke says that it is his intention to observe chronological order in his 
work; therefore we should a priori expect him, rather than the other evan¬ 
gelists, to record events in their proper sequence. This assumption amounts 
almost to certainty when we take into account the peculiarities in St. Luke’s 
report of the Eucharistic celebration. Though very short, it has the follow¬ 
ing significant characteristics: St. Luke alone tells us that the supper began 
at the customary hour ( cum venisset hora: the other evangelists write ves¬ 
per e facto) ; he alone distinguishes the Paschal cup from the chalice of the 
Eucharist; and he alone remarks that the chalice was consecrated ra rb 
deurvrjacu. These minute details enable us to perceive the course of events 
during that evening, and decidedly support the theory that St. Luke ad¬ 
heres to the chronological order. Moreover, the words ttXtji' Idov , expressing 
a sharp contrast, are recorded by this evangelist as used by our Saviour 
when turning away from celebrating the Eucharist to speak of His ap¬ 
proaching betrayal: these words would have their full force only if Judas 
had been still present at the Eucharist. They emphasize the contrast be¬ 
tween our Lord’s act of love performed in the Supper Room, when He gave 
His blood, shed in sacrifice, to His followers, and the full treachery of 
Judas, who, whilst sitting at the feast, plotted how to shed his Master’s 
blood on the cross. Against this theory it is urged that St. Luke’s arrange¬ 
ment is due to his regard for his subject matter, rather than for chronology, 
that in placing the account of Judas after the celebration of the Eucharist, 
he was influenced by a desire to draw out the contrast between the charity 
displayed by our Lord, and the black ingratitude of the apostle. In reply 
it may be asked: May not Jesus Himself have done this? How can it be 
proved that a practical lesson of this kind did not find its expression in the 
historical course of events, but was imported by St. Luke into his account? 

Even if St. Matthew and St. Mark record the denunciation of the traitor 
in its proper place, it does not follow that he did not assist at the celebra¬ 
tion of the Eucharist. Neither evangelist says that Judas left the Supper 
Room after his treacherous intentions were revealed. It is held by some 
that Judas could not possibly have remained in the room after this dis¬ 
closure, but there are strong arguments against this theory. As has been 
already pointed out, St. Mark’s account contains no definite indication of 
the traitor, but merely the assertion that he was one of the apostles; in fact 
after Jesus had plainly informed John that Judas was the traitor, and after 
Judas had gone out, the other apostles, quite unaware of his treachery, sup¬ 
posed him to have gone to execute some commission for his Master. No 
public and direct denunciation therefore took place, such as the advocates 
of the above-mentioned theory assume to have occurred. St. Matthew tells 
us that, even after the brief conversation between our Lord and St. John, 
at the very moment of receiving the dipped bread, the symbolical mean¬ 
ing of which could not have been obscure to him after what had already 
passed, Judas still ventured to ask whether he were the traitor; and St. 
John says that Judas, though in a whisper definitely denounced as the trai¬ 
tor, still did not withdraw until directly ordered by Jesus to do so. Hence 

(sc. apostolis) distribuerat Dominus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis 
sui, ubi et ipse Judas, sicut Lucas “ evidentissime” narrat, ac “ deinde” ad 
hoc ventum est, ubi secundum narrationem Joannis apertissime Dominus per 
buccellani tinctam atque porrectam suutn exprimit traditorem. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 75 

we are forced to conclude that, according to the gospel account of him, 
Judas was not the sort of man to leave the room at once when his treacher¬ 
ous plans were revealed. St. Mark even seems to suggest that Judas was 
present at the Last Supper, for he writes that Jesus spoke of the “twelve” 
who were at the table with Him, and says that they “ all ” drank of the 
chalice. 1 

Again, recent commentators have attempted, by supplying from St. 
John’s account what is wanting in St. Matthew’s, to show, at least as 
probable, that Judas left the Supper Room before the celebration of the 
Eucharist. It is, however, a doubtful method for arriving at an even prob¬ 
able result, since St. John omits the institution of the Eucharist altogether. 
The line of argument is the following: John xiii. 1-30, at the conclusion of 
which Judas’ departure is recorded, forms a paragraph so closely intercon¬ 
nected that it would be impossible to insert into it any account of the insti¬ 
tution of the Eucharist, which must therefore have taken place after the 
events recorded in that paragraph. Against this argument we may point out 
that the verses in John xiii. 1-30 do not hang so closely together as has been 
assumed; in fact the connection of verse 20 with the preceding verses has 
been frequently discussed, and some have gone so far as to regard verse 20 
as a marginal gloss incorporated at a later date into the text; others again 
have abandoned all attempts to establish a connection. Indeed, there seems 
to be between verses 1-19 and 20-31 a gap where the account of the Last 
Supper might be inserted. 

The majority of recent commentators are influenced by psychological 
rather than exegetical considerations when trying to prove that Judas took 
no part in the Eucharistic feast. Among Catholic scholars Laurent is em¬ 
phatic on this point; he thinks that it would have been inconsistent with 
the majesty and dignity of the God-Man to pass into the body of a traitor 
after the devil had entered into him. Laurent finds further reasons for ex¬ 
clusion of Judas from the Eucharist in the fact that Jesus appointed His 
apostles to be priests, and that in His lament over Judas’ treachery there is 
no allusion at all to an unworthy communion. 8 As to the former reason, 
we may notice that other commentators 8 see a reference to Judas’ elevation 
to the priesthood at the Last Supper in the Psalmist’s words: et episcopa- 
tum ejus accipiat alter? 

It may be urged, against this line of argument, that its reasons are of a 
subjective character, and, however weighty they appear, they have very 
little force as evidence, especially since strictly exegetical considerations 
show that the opposite of what they profess to prove is certainly, or at 
least most probably, the truth. 

Thus we arrive at the following conclusion: Exegetical reasons and the 
vast majority of the Fathers and commentators, especially those of earlier 
date, but also some recent scholars, 8 support the theory that Judas joined 
in the celebration of the Last Supper and received Holy Communion with 
the other apostles. Hence in the wonderful hymn Pange lingua gloriosi it 
is said correctly: 

Cibum turbae duodenae 
Se dat suis manibus. 

1 Compare Mark xiv. 17, 20, 23. 3 Laurent, Das heil. Evang. 636 seqq. 

8 Suarez and Corn, a Lap. 4 * 6 * Ps. lxviii. 26; cviii. 8; compare Acts i. 20. 

6 J. Grimm (6, 133) writes: “I am convinced that the account given in 

the gospels plainly records, in its historical connection, the fact that Judas 

was still with the others at table, when the Holy Eucharist was instituted. 



76 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


VI. The Strife among the Apostles 

Luke xxii. 24-30 


24. And there was also a strife 
amongst them, which of them should 
seem to be greater. 

25. And he said to them: The 
kings of the gentiles lord it over 
them ; and they that have power over 
them, are called beneficent. 

26. But you not so: but he that is 
the greater among you, let him be¬ 
come as the younger: and he that is 
the leader, as he that serveth. 

27. For which is greater, he that 
sitteth at table or he that serveth? 


Is not he that sitteth at table? but I 
am in the midst of you as he that 
serveth. 

28. And you are they who have 
continued with me in my temptations. 

29. And I dispose to you, as my 
Father hath disposed to me, a 
kingdom. 

30. That you may eat and drink at 
my table in my kingdom: and may 
sit upon thrones judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel. 


Chronological Question. Many different answers have been 
given to the question as to where this section regarding the 
strife among the apostles, recorded by St. Luke alone, ought 
to stand in the history of events at the Last Supper. Certain 
indications seem to be given by the evangelist himself. We 
know that in the introduction to his gospel he states the inten¬ 
tion of setting forth in order the narration of the occurrences 
in our Lord’s life, that is to say, he aims at preserving the 
chronological sequence. Now he places his account of this 
dispute after that of the institution of the Eucharist, to which 
he seems to allude by his manner of introducing the story of 
the dispute. The words “and there was also a strife” look as 
if a further detail were being added to something already re¬ 
ported, and our Saviour Himself, in speaking of the strife, 
apparently refers to His washing of the disciples’ feet as to an 
event that had already taken place. 

In all probability the strife for precedence occurred after 
the celebration of the Eucharist and after the traitor’s depar¬ 
ture. 1 On the other hand, many commentators connect it with 
the washing of feet, either preceding it, and so giving occasion 
for it, 2 or actually motived by the order in which our Lord 
washed the disciples’ feet. 3 Comely is of opinion that the 
quarrel preceded the institution of the Eucharist, and was 
separated from it by several utterances of our Lord. 4 

Thus Lamy, Laurent, Schanz, and others. 2 Salmeron, for instance. 

bt. John Chrys. and others. 4 Curs, script, s., libri introd. Ill, 298. 





77 


PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 

Although very various opinions have been expressed regarding the cause 
of the quarrel, it can be determined with tolerable certainty. On a previous 
occasion a similar dispute had arisen. 1 At that time Jesus, being on His way 
to Jerusalem, had spoken of His resurrection, and had promised the 
apostles that they should sit on thrones and judge the people. They as¬ 
sumed, therefore, that the glorious Messianic kingdom was about to be es¬ 
tablished, and clamored for honorable positions in it. If we bear in mind 
the connection of events and the substance of our Lord’s instruction, we 
shall see that the strife in the Supper Room was due to a similar cause. 
Jesus had been speaking of the Kingdom of God as coming, 2 and had fore¬ 
told the new covenant and His own departure from this world. 3 All this 
encouraged the apostles to think that the foundation of the ardently desired 
kingdom of the Messiah was at hand : qui quae dixerat Jesus de proxima sua 
niorte, sic accipiebant, quasi regnum ejus statuereturJ Our Lord’s own allu¬ 
sion to the glorious rule of the apostles in His Kingdom B makes it extremely 
probable that their anticipation of the approaching reign of the Messiah on 
earth had given rise to the quarrel. 

Precedence in the Messianic Kingdom. From various indi¬ 
cations and allusions in their Master’s discourses, the apostles 
thought that the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom was 
at hand, and consequently they began to dispute as to “ which of 
them should seem to be greater.” The evangelist lays stress 
upon the subject of their dispute by prefixing the article: to ris 
. . . fxeLfav. The disciples did not merely discuss which of 
them should be the greater, and occupy the higher position in 
the Kingdom of the Messiah, but also which should seem to be 
greater, and enjoy a higher reputation among the members of 
this Kingdom. In addressing the apostles, our Lord did not 
lose sight of this motive for their quarrel. They took for 
granted that, owing to their relation to their Master, they 
would occupy prominent positions in the Kingdom that they an¬ 
ticipated in accordance with their own ideas; what they wanted 
to know was who should take precedence of the others in 
rank and repute. Our Lord had frequently shown special 
favor to Peter, James, and John; He had repeatedly singled 
out Peter before all the other apostles, and at the Last Supper 
John enjoyed peculiar intimacy with Him; consequently the 
question was natural to their minds. The very fact of raising 
such a question, however, shows how defective a knowledge 
the apostles still possessed of the nature of the Messianic 
Kingdom, and how far they still were from perfect purity of 


1 Compare Matthew xx. 25-28; Mark x. 41-45; Luke ix. 46-48. 

2 Luke xxii. 18. 3 Luke xxii. 22. 

4 Lamy. 5 Luke xxii. 30. 



78 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

intention. Still, we need not feel surprised that such a question 
was asked right after the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, 
because it was not until later, through the power of the Holy 
Spirit, that the apostles were fully enlightened and purified. 

This strife among His disciples prompted our Lord! to 
deliver to them a discourse, which may be summed up as 
follows. He taught them what spirit should influence them as 
rulers of the Church, what task they had to accomplish, and 
what reward for loyalty and perseverance would be theirs in 
His Kingdom. The apostles must, He said, be filled with the 
spirit of true humility, and discharge their functions as rulers 
for the benefit and in the service of their subordinates. This 
instruction and admonition were rendered more emphatic by 
our Lord’s contrasting the behavior and activity required of 
the apostles with the rule and aims of Gentile potentates. 
Despotism prevailed in the pagan world: “ The kings of the 
gentiles lord it over them,” i.e., over their subjects. The 
context shows that the verb translated as “lord it” denotes a 
use of royal power that aims simply at a display of authority 
and at forcing the subjects to pay unconditional obedience. 
Such a dominion is harsh and tyrannical, selfish and arrogant; 
it regards only the advantage of the ruler and overlooks the 
welfare of his subjects, who are considered as a mere rabble 
possessing no rights. Jansenius gives a very good explanation 
of domimri, as used here: dominandi et imperandi fastum ex 
principatu quaerunt, atpote eum solo dominatu, non utilitate 
subditorum metientes. A further characteristic of the relation 
between ruler and ruled in the pagan world is indicated by 
Jesus in the words: “they that have power . . . are called 
benefactor.” “ Benefactor,” like “ Father of the country,” was 
a title of honor. We know from Josephus 1 that, when Ves¬ 
pasian entered the city of Tiberias, the populace welcomed 
him with cries of “ Saviour and Benefactor.” Two of the 
Macedonian sovereigns of Egypt, Ptolemy III and Ptolemy VII, 
were called “Euergetes,” a title meaning that the bearer had 
deserved well of his country and people, and so had shown him¬ 
self a public benefactor. The case which our Saviour had in 
view was different. The context proves Jesus to have been 


1 B. J. Ill, 9, 8. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 79 

alluding to the fact that pagan tyrants sometimes assumed 
the title of benefactor, and were so called by their subjects, 
although they did nothing at all to deserve it. The tyranny 
of pagan governors corrupted and degraded their subordinates 
to such a degree that frequently not only flatterers and syco¬ 
phants, but also the people in general, gave the name of 
benefactors to their oppressors. The history of the Roman 
Empire furnishes instances of this lamentable effect of tyran¬ 
nical government. 

According to Christ’s teaching, the relation between ruler 
and ruled was to be quite different in the Messianic kingdom. 
Hence to His representatives, the apostles, He said: “ He that 
is the greater among you, let him become as the younger.” 
The expression employed assumes plainly that all officials in 
the Kingdom will be great, but that one among them will be the 
greater, and take precedence of the rest. Greatness in the 
Messianic kingdom is to reveal itself in the greater becoming 
as the younger, i.e., in his being filled with true and genuine 
humility. There can be no doubt that our Saviour impressed 
upon all the apostles the duty of humility, but the form in which 
He did so is significant. He did not say: “You, being great, 
must become as the younger”; but, “the greater among you, 
let him become as the younger,” thus making known the truth 
that the heads of the Church should practise humility in a 
degree corresponding to their dignity and position. By the 
spirit of humility the apostles were to overcome the heathen 
nations plunged in vain pride and arrogance, and, as repre¬ 
sentatives of a humble Saviour, they were so to practise this 
virtue as to preserve the spirit of humility in their sub¬ 
ordinates. Many commentators think that here, as on a 
previous occasion, 1 Jesus was speaking primarily of the way to 
greatness in the Kingdom of the Messiah: qui vult inter vos 
esse maximus, fiat minimus, hac ratione fiet maximus . 2 This 
view is not quite accurate. The words show that our Lord was 
instructing those who already occupied an exalted position in 
the Church how they should behave, and by what spirit they 
should be guided. On the other hand it is true that spiritual 
dignity is enhanced by a genuinely humble disposition in him 


1 Matthew xx. 26. 


3 Corn, a Lap., Lamy, and others. 



So 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


who bears it, and shines forth conspicuously in the true great¬ 
ness and majesty that Christ desired His followers to possess. 
In this sense St. Augustine’s impressive words are applicable to 
all dignitaries of the Church: cogitas magnam fabricam ex* 
truere celsitudinisf de fundamento prius cogita humilitatis. 1 

With humility the apostles were to unite self-sacrificing 
labor for the welfare of the faithful: “he that is the leader 
[let him become] as he that serveth.” They are indeed chiefs 
and rulers in the Church of Christ, and as such possess full 
authority over their subjects, but their power is to be used in 
the service and for the good of the faithful. St. Peter, the 
chief per excellentiam , expanded his Master’s words in an 
instruction addressed to the priests of the Church, and wrote: 
“ Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, 
not by constraint, but willingly, according to God; not for 
filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily; neither as lording it over 
the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the 
heart.” 2 A ruler in the Church is to exercise his authority, 
not in order to act as lord, still less in order to gratify his own 
selfish aims by harshness towards others, but so as to serve 
the faithful and promote their welfare. Christ speaks of His 
own manner of acting as a model for the right exercise of the 
pastoral office. “ Which,” He asks, “ is greater, he that sitteth 
at table or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? 
But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.” The inter¬ 
rogation makes the words more vivid and expressive. In 
the statement: “ I am in the midst of you as he that serveth,” the 
pronoun “ I ” is emphatic, — I, your Lord and Master. To the 
question as to which of the services rendered to the apostles our 
Saviour had in view, various answers are given. Quite con¬ 
trary to the actual facts of the case, some commentators refer 
to what the Jewish ritual required Jesus to do during the 
Paschal supper; they forget that He then acted as host, drink¬ 
ing first, and then giving wine to the others, imparting 
instructions., inviting the disciples to offer thanks to God, and 
finally concluding the feast. The form of the sentence seems 
to show that Jesus, in uttering these words, had in view, not 
His services rendered to the apostles in general, but a special 


1 Sermo io, de verb. Dom. 


2 Peter v. 2, 3. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 81 


service rendered to those then gathered around Him. If this 
surmise be correct, He was referring to His having washed 
their feet, thus acting as a humble servant to His apostles. 

By humble and faithful service in the Kingdom of Christ on 
earth, the apostles were to earn great happiness and glory in 
His Kingdom in heaven. This is the fundamental idea in the 
second part of our Lord’s discourse, and it is closely connected 
with the cause of the disciples’ quarrel: postquam modestiam 
docuit, apostolis Dominus, spent , quant regni conceperant, con- 
fir mavit. 1 Our Lord began by alluding to the loyalty and per¬ 
severance that the disciples had already displayed: “You are 
they who have continued with me in my temptations.” By 
“ temptations ” we must understand all the various sorrows that 
Jesus endured on earth. He calls them temptations, His tempta¬ 
tions, because He had to bear them in accordance with His heav¬ 
enly Father’s will, and thus show His perfect submission to it. 
Our Saviour recognized the fact that the apostles had been faith¬ 
ful to Him hitherto, although many others had forsaken Him: 
constanter mihi in tribulationibus adhaesistis, aliis me deserenti - 
bits . His commendation of their fidelity includes an exhortation 
to persevere in the same, for the context makes it clear that 
perseverance is a necessary condition to the fulfillment of the 
glorious promise that Jesus went on to make to the apostles: 
“And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a 
Kingdom.” The introductory words “and I” are emphatic. 
The apostles have been faithful to Jesus; He, their Master, will 
in His turn reward them plentifully. In their favor He dis¬ 
poses of the Kingdom of heavenly bliss and glory, giving it to 
them as their own possession. He goes on to speak of the 
happiness that they will enjoy and the position they will occupy 
in His Kingdom. He compares His own arrangement for them 
with His Father’s designs for Himself. This comparison is 
explained in three ways. 2 If we take into account the occur¬ 
rence that called forth the speech and the following verse, that 
contains an elucidation of it, the meaning seems to be: Just 
as God the Father ordained from all eternity that I, the Mes¬ 
siah, should be lord of the Messianic kingdom, so do I ordain 
that you apostles shall share my happiness and authority in this 


1 Lamy. 


Compare Maid, ad loc. 




8 2 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


kingdom. Many commentators believe the word sicut to in¬ 
dicate that, for the apostles too, the way of humiliation and 
suffering trodden by our Lord was the only path whereby they 
could enter the Kingdom. 1 

Both in the Old 2 and in the New 3 Testament enjoyment of 
the happiness of heaven is frequently represented as participa¬ 
tion at a feast. Our Lord makes use of the same metaphor 
here, to express the bliss that the apostles will share with Him. 
Very many commentators see in the words “at my table” an 
allusion to the honors awaiting the apostles in heaven: ut 
tanquam primi proceres regni mei veris omnis generis deliciis ac 
voluptatibus mecum perfruamini, videlicet ut laborum ita et 
honoris quietisque socii. 4 

In the Kingdom of Heaven the apostles were to enjoy pecu¬ 
liar honor and to possess judicial authority; they were to sit on 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Lamy states* 
very clearly the connection between these and the preceding 
words: honos est in mensae regalis consortio; potestas in 
judiciorum participatione. Reference to the parallel passage in 
St. Matthew’s gospel 5 shows that our Lord was thinking of 
the general judgment, which He described more fully in His 
last eschatological discourse. 6 7 

The following questions require a short discussion: What is the meaning 
of the verb judging in this passage? What were the judicial functions of 
the apostles to be? Whom were they to judge? Maldonatus, like many 
other commentators, thinks that “judge” is here equivalent to “condemn,” 
and understands by the twelve tribes of Israel the unbelieving Jews. Re¬ 
garding the judicial functions of the apostles he says: Apostolos judica¬ 
tures, tanquam doctores tanquam testes accusantes quodammodo eos, qui 
sibi evangelium praedicantibus et salutis viam docentibus credere nolue- 
runt . T Christ taught, however, quite definitely that the last judgment, to 
which He alludes here, was to be universal, affecting good and bad alike, 8 
and consequently it seems unnecessary to limit the force of the verb 
Kpiveiv. According to Holy Scripture, not only the apostles, but the faithful 
in general, and especially the Ninevites who did penance, are to sit as 
judges with Christ. As to the judicial activity of the apostles, it is clear 
that on this subject it is not enough to adopt the theory of what is called 

1 Compare Luke xxiv. 26; Phil. ii. 9. 

8 For instance, Is. xxv. 6. 

8 Matthew viii. 11, xxii. 1; Luke xiv. 15 seqq. 

4 Jansenius. 

5 Matthew xix. 28. 

6 Matthew xxiv. 30 seqq., xxv. 31 seqq. 

7 ad Matth. xix. 28. 

8 Compare Matthew xxv. 31 seqq.; John v. 28, 29. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 83 

comparative judgment. But to assume that their whole duty as judges will 
be to introduce the faithful to the bliss assigned to them by Christ, seems 
an inadequate interpretation of the text, which indicates that at the gen¬ 
eral judgment the apostles will co-operate in a special, positive manner, 
though in complete subordination to and concurrence with Christ, the Judge 
of the world. As a rule the expression “ the twelve tribes of Israel ” is 
understood to mean, not the Jewish nation, but the whole number of the 
faithful, Israel secundum spiritum. In support of this interpretation the 
following arguments may be adduced. All nations are to be gathered to¬ 
gether before the judgment seat of Christ; 1 the judicial functions pos¬ 
sessed by the apostles belong to them in virtue of the exalted position that 
they hold in the Church of Christ, of which the Jewish nation with its 
twelve tribes was a type. Others think that by “ the twelve tribes of Israel ” 
we must understand the Jews, but that our Lord, in using the expression, 
did not mean that the apostles would judge only the Jews and used it 
merely to make plain to them their great authority and dignity in heaven. 
Majoris honoris opinionetn non capiebant Judaei, quam quo fruerentur 
phylarchae, nempe qui duodecim tribuum Israel principes erant .* 


VII. Our Lord’s Prayer for Simon Peter 

Luke xxii. 31, 32 

31. And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold satan hath desired to have 
you that he may sift you as wheat. 

32. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being 
once converted, confirm thy brethren. 

Great happiness and glory were destined for the apostles in 
heaven, 3 but before they could enter upon the possession of the 
good things in store for them, they would have to endure and 
overcome dangerous assaults. During this period, so full of 
troubles and perils, Simon Peter, the chief of the apostles, had 
to act as the divinely appointed foundation of the Church.— 
Such are the principal thoughts expressed in our Lord’s brief 
address to Peter. “ And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold 
satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat.” 
— Before leaving the apostles, Christ warned them several 
times of the dangers threatening them. 4 He did this, lest they 
should yield to a false idea of safety, and fail to provide against 
times of trial, for praevisa ac provisa tela minus feriunt , and 
also in order that when the foretold temptations came upon 
them, their faith in their Master’s omniscience might be 
strengthened. The warning to St. Peter was given in an un- 


1 Matthew xxv. 32. 
3 Luke xxii. 29, 30. 


2 Lamy. 

4 e.g. John xvi. I seqq. 




84 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

usually solemn and impressive form and for a very special 
purpose. 

Although Christ had previously addressed all the apostles, 
and although He now spoke of sufferings that awaited all His 
disciples, on this occasion He turned to Peter alone, and the 
repetition of the name Simon gives emphasis to his words and 
lays stress upon the serious character of the situation: Repetitio 
nominis attentioni ejus excitandae et affectui suo tanquam serio 
loquentis indicando inservit. 1 The form of address is analo¬ 
gous to that used by our Lord when giving Simon the name 
of Peter, 2 when announcing his primacy, 3 and when bestow¬ 
ing upon him the supreme pastoral office. 4 

The prediction of the impending struggles is introduced by 
the words: “ Satan hath desired to have you; ” i.e., he is eager 
to have you under his control, that he may dispose of you ac¬ 
cording to his own designs. The chief of the evil spirits is 
aptly called “ Satan,” because being the most bitter foe and an¬ 
tagonist of Christ and His work, he assailed most violently 
His representatives, the apostles. 5 The expression is sug¬ 
gestive of one occurring in the book of Job, 6 and lays stress 
on two truths: Great dangers await the apostles, but they 
can be tempted only with the sanction of God, who desires 
their salvation. 7 

Satan’s intention in assailing the apostles is indicated by our 
Lord in the words: “ that he may sift you as wheat.” 

The metaphor becomes intelligible if we remember that among the Jews 
corn, after threshing, was winnowed, i.e., cast against the wind by means 
of a winnowing shovel, in order to separate the grains from the chaff. 
The corn thus separated was, as a rule, sifted, and then heaped together, 
all refuse having been removed. The metaphor of the sieve expresses the 
great and dangerous assaults which the apostles would have to undergo 
from Satan, who desired to shake the sieve so violently that the grains of 
wheat would fly out with the chaff, and so be lost; 8 in other words, by 
means of attacks and persecutions of every imaginable kind Satan hoped so 


1 Jansenius. 

2 John i. 42. 

8 Matthew xvi. 17. 

4 John xxi. 15. 

6 Compare Comm, ad Joh. viii. 44. 

6 i. 6 seqq. 

7 Bede ad loc.: Verum, cum satanas expetivit eos tentare, et velut, qui 
triticum purgat, ventilando concutere, docet t nullius fidem a diabolo nisi 
Deo permittente tentari. 

8 Compare Laurent, ad loc. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 85 

to disturb the apostles that they would waver in their faith, and fall away, 
and possibly be lost. Our Lord’s words show that Satan aimed especially 
at imperilling, falsifying, and actually destroying their faith; these at¬ 
tempts on the part of the evil one are explicable when we remember the 
great value and fundamental importance of faith, and also the fact that 
the apostles’ special task was to explain and preach the true faith and to 
maintain its purity. In further reply to the question why Christ used the 
metaphor of a sieve to indicate the dangers with which Satan was threaten¬ 
ing the apostles, we may say: this metaphor expresses not only the violent 
attacks and trials which the apostles would have to undergo, but also the 
actual result which God desired their temptations to effect, viz., their com¬ 
plete cleansing and purifying from evil. 1 St. Peter himself expresses the 
same thought in his first epistle, where he uses an Old Testament metaphor 
and compares the purifying of men by means of suffering and persecution 
with the refining of gold in the furnace; “that the trial of your faith 
(much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found 
unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” 2 

Our Lord, however, opposed His powerful and efficacious 
intercession with God to the assaults of the devil: “I have 
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” A short time sub¬ 
sequently our Saviour prayed for all the apostles collectively, 
because all alike were called to carry to the whole world the 
tidings of salvation; He prayed that they might be protected 
in the wicked world wherein they had to labor; He prayed that 
God would sanctify them for their Messianic office, and He 
prayed that, after successfully completing their task in spite 
of all difficulties, they might gain admission to the Beatific 
Vision in heaven. But in the passage under consideration our 
Saviour first foretold that all the apostles would have to 
undergo terrible trials, but to Peter alone He spoke of His 
powerful intercession, saying nothing at all about praying for 
the others. It is undeniable that at first sight our Lord’s action 
on this occasion appears unusual. How could their loving 
Master, anxious for the salvation of all His disciples, foretell 
that all would be assailed by the devil, and yet intercede for 
only one of them? This question must be answered in ac¬ 
cordance with the subsequent allusion in the passage before 
us, and with the definite testimony in the gospels and Acts of 
the Apostles regarding St. Peter’s position in the apostolic 
band. Our Lord’s peculiar solicitude for Simon Peter was 
due to this apostle’s singular position, as chief of the apostles 


1 Compare Calmet, ad loc. 

2 1 Peter i. 7; compare Ps. Ixv. 10; Zach. xiii. 9; Mai. lii. 2, 3. 



86 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


and as the foundation stone of the Church. Christ’s behavior 
can be satisfactorily explained only if we assume that His 
prayer for the prince of the apostles and for the firm establish¬ 
ment of the Church included prayer for all the other apostles 
and for the entire Church. 1 Christ did not pray that St. Peter 
might not be tempted, but that his faith might not fail. Apart 
from the great value and importance of faith in itself, our 
Lord probably prayed for St. Peter’s faith, because on account 
of his faith and his fearless profession of it this apostle had 
been deemed worthy to become the foundation stone of the 
Church. Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith might not fail. The 
Greek verb means: diminish, fade away, cease. In Attic Greek 
it was used in speaking of an eclipse of the sun. Christ prayed, 
therefore, that his faith might not diminish, fade away, or 
cease, that it might suffer no eclipse, no temporary obscurity. 
Others give a different explanation, viz., Jesus prayed that 
Peter’s faith might not completely fail, might not permanently 
disappear, but undergo at the most a passing eclipse, a tempo¬ 
rary darkness. These interpretations are partly read into the 
text, partly altogether contrary to the text; for Jesus prayed 
precisely that Peter’s faith should not be eclipsed, i.e., that it 
should not even for a time grow dim and faint. According to 
the words of the Bible, Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith might 
continue permanently unscathed, and that the faith which 
Peter had already professed publicly should be preserved 
always, in all its fullness. The earlier commentators do not 
often discuss the precise force of the verb employed, but where 
they mention it, they give it a more general application. 
Tirinus writes: ut non extinguatur, non intermoriatur fides 
tua; De la Haye: ut non cesset fides tua; Jansenius jun.: 
ut non penitus eradicetur et extinguatur; Calmet: ut fide non 
cad as. 

1 Leo the Great, Sermo 4: Commune erat omnibus periculum de tenta- 
tione formidinis, et divinae protectionis auxilio pariter indigebant, quoniam 
diabolus omnes exagitare, omnes cupiebat elidere; et tamen specialis a 
Domino Petri cura suscipitur. et pro fide Petri proprie supplicatur, tanquam 
aliorum status certiori sit futurus, si mens principis victa non fuerit. —• 
Bossuet, Medit die 70: Satanas, inquit, expetivit vos, ut omnes cribraret, 
ego autem Petre rogavi pro te, pro te in particulari, pro te distincte: non 
quod alios neglexerit, sea, ut patres exponunt, quod firmato capite impedire 
voluit, ne membra nutarent. Compare Jansenius ad locrogavi pro te pe - 
culiariter tanquam pro capite ceterorum, per quern reliquos ad salutem addu - 
cere decrevi. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 87 

Some difficult questions arise at this point: 

(0 Did our Lord’s intercession include the moment of Peter’s fall, or 
did it refer only to the period after His own death? 

(ii) If it refers also to the time of the fall, how can we reconcile Christ’s 
efficacious intercession on behalf of Peter’s faith with the fact that this 
apostle so shortly afterwards denied his Master? 

These two questions are undoubtedly the reasons why many of the 
earlier commentators give only a vague explanation of the words non 
deficere. Christ’s intercession for Peter referred both to the present and 
to the future, as the explanation of the second half of the verse will show. 
Maldonatus adopts this view, and his opinion is the more important be¬ 
cause he takes conversus adverbially, and does not connect it with Peter's 
recovery after his fall. 1 

Like Maldonatus, commentators both ancient and modern, almost with¬ 
out exception, see in Christ’s words a reference to Peter’s denial. 2 Schanz 
does this, 3 and remarks that the addition of the words “ that thy faith fail 
not indicates that Peter, having received through God’s revelation the true 
faith in the Son of God, now, through that Son’s intercession, received as¬ 
surance that his faith would stand firm, in spite of his temporary weakness. 
If, however, Christ’s intercession was efficacious, we may ask how Peter 
could nevertheless deny his Master. The answer to this question is given 
by Ven. Bede in the passage already quoted. Maldonatus discusses it more 
fully; he asks: quo ergo modo Petrus negavit, si pro eo Christus orans, ne 
ejus fides deficeret, exauditus est pro sua reverentia? and he replies: facilis 
responsio. Negare, se nosse Christum, non fuit ejus fidem deficere, sed 
tentari. Et non dixerat se oraturum Christus, ut non tentaretur, sed ut non 
deficeret fides ejus. Many other commentators give a similar reply. We 
shall have to discuss the nature and significance of Peter’s denial in its 
proper place; here it will suffice to point out the following facts as tending 
to throw light on the matter: According to the unanimous testimony of the 
evangelists, the questions addressed to St. Peter in the atrium of the high 
priest’s house merely concerned his connection with Jesus, and not his be¬ 
lief in Jesus as the Messiah. 4 Even if his answer to the second question, in 
the form recorded by St. Matthew, could be regarded as a denial of Christ 
as the Messiah (and a few commentators think that it may be regarded 
thus), we should still have to remember that Peter denied his Master in 
word, but not in his heart, and that he never lost or abandoned the faith 
which he had professed near Caesarea Philippi. This view is universally 
accepted and it is borne out by St. Peter’s repentance immediately after the 
denial. Thus all we can say is that, at the moment of his denying Christ, 
Peter was influenced by human respect and did not displajr the same cour¬ 
age and decision in proclaiming his faith, as he displayed both before and 


1 Non dubium quin ad futuram Petri negationem Christus alludat, 
sed . . . longius etiam respexit non solum ad eas tentationes, quas Petrus 
ceterique omnes apostoli ipsi per se viventes, sed ad eas etiam, quas eorum 
successores, id est ecclesia , unquam subituri essent. 

2 Ven. Bede, Expositio ad loc.; Cum vero pro Petro rogans Salvator, 
non ut non tentetur, sed ut non deficiat fides ejus obsecrat, hoc est, ut post 
lapsum negationis ad statum pristinum poenitendo resurgat, insinuat, 
utile sanctis esse, tentationum flammis examinari. 

8 Apologie des Christentums, 3, 360. 

4 Compare Matthew xxvi. 69, 71, 73; Mark xiv. 67, 69, 70; Luke xxii. 56, 
58, 59; John xviii. 17, 25, 26, and also Luke xxii. 34. 



88 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


after his fall. There is nothing in the Biblical accounts to suggest that he 
ever fell away from the faith, or lost even for a moment his firm hold upon 
it. When our Lord appointed Simon Peter to be the supreme teacher of 
faith in His Church, He foretold the weakness to which he would momen¬ 
tarily yield; this was done to impress upon the prince of the apostles the 
truth that, just as he had through divine revelation received the faith 
which caused him to be appointed the foundation of the Church, so did he 
owe to Christ’s intercession, and not to his own natural power, the firmness 
and decision that enabled him to maintain unity of faith in that Church. 
Some commentators avoid the difficulty arising from St. Peter’s fall by as¬ 
suming that Christ’s intercession affected only the period subsequent to it. 
In this sense Laurent writes: “The difficulty vanishes when we rightly 
understand Christ’s promises to Peter as concerning only the future Vicar 
of Christ and teacher of faith, and consequently as not taking effect until 
after our Lord’s departure from the midst of His apostles. This explana¬ 
tion was given by Christ Himself, for in the course of conversation He 
alluded to Peter’s denial, and did not allow His prayer for the apostle’s per¬ 
severance in the faith to avail until after that denial had been uttered.” 1 

In His thanksgiving immediately before the raising of 
Lazarus, Christ declared solemnly: “Father, I give Thee thanks 
that thou hast heard me, and I knew that thou hearest me 
always .” 2 He knew therefore that His prayer for Simon 
Peter had also been heard, and so He added at once 
the command — “and thou, being converted, confirm thy 
brethren.” This command could be obeyed by Peter only if 
he maintained and taught in all purity and completeness, by 
the aid of divine grace obtained for him by Christ’s prayer, the 
faith revealed to him. As the context shows that the prayer 
for Peter was really heard, St. Augustine says that it is useless 
to doubt that our Lord asked and obtained for His apostles in 
fide liberrimam, fortissimam, invictissimam, per sever antissi- 
mam voluntatem . 3 After these general remarks on the formal 
connection between our Lord’s charge to Peter and His prayer 
for him, we must proceed to examine the details of the charge 
more closely. 


The participle e?ri arptyas ( conversus ) is interpreted in two ways: some 
adhere strictly to the participial idea, and see in the word an allusion to 
Peter’s return after his fall; others regard the word as a Hebraism, and 
render it adverbially, “in thy turn.” The exegetical reasons for adopting 
the latter view deserve consideration. From Maldonatus down to the pres¬ 
ent time those commentators who take conversus adverbially appeal to Ven. 
Bede in support of their rendering. Bede, however, sees in our Lord’s 
prayer for Peter an allusion to his fall, as the passage already quoted shows; 


1 Das heilige Evangelium, 489. 

* De corrept. et gratia, 18, 7. 


John xi. 41, 4 2. 




PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 89 

and it is plain from his paraphrase of Christ’s charge to Simon Peter that 
he regards it, too, as announcing the apostle’s repentance, and consequently 
conversus is not interpreted adverbially. Bede’s paraphrase runs thus: 
sicut ipse tuam(inquit) fidem, ne, satana tentante, deficiat, orando protexi, 
ita et tu infirmiores quosque fratres exemplo tuae poenitentiae, ne de venia 
forte desperent, erigere et confortare memento, St. Ambrose, who wrote 
still earlier, took conversus to refer to the tears shed by Peter after his 
denial. 1 

The Greek writer Theophylact, Epitomist of St. John Chrysostom, 
writes on conversus the note: postquani negato me fleveris et ad poeniten- 
tiain veneris, and further on in his exhaustive commentary he says: con¬ 
versus hoc est, poenitentiam agens et lacrimas prof undens et a negatione 
resiliens. In his Catena Aurea St. Thomas Aquinas refers exclusively to 
commentators who take conversus to mean moral conversion, viz., The¬ 
ophylact, Cyril and Bede. The quotation from St. Cyril is: admirare igitur 
exuberantiam divinae patientiae: ne diffidere discipulum faceret, nondum 
patrato criinine largitus est veniam ac iterum ipsum in apostolico gradu 
restituit dicens: confirma fratres tuos. The erroneous view that Peter lost 
his rank as apostle, but subsequently recovered it, will be discussed in the 
section dealing with his reception of the chief pastoral office in the Church. 
Lyranus remarks on this passage: conversus, sc. de peccato ad gratiam. 
Maldonatus regards the expression as a Hebraism, to be rendered rursus 
or iterum, but adds: mihi non displicet interpretatio Ambrosii. Tirinus 
says simply: conversus a scelere tuo. Cornelius a Lapide first gives the 
explanation conversus a cribratione satanae et a peccato, and then adds: 
nonnulli accipiunt pro “iterum,” and mentions Bede as an authority for this 
interpretation. Lamy and Calmet take conversus to mean a return to Christ 
after the fall, but they say that it is occasionally taken adverbially, in the 
sense of iterum. Jansenius jun. paraphrases: conversus a peccato nega¬ 
tions, and adds: quamquam alius percommodus possit esse sensus, viz., do 
thou in thy turn confirm thy brethren. 

Among more recent commentators who have discussed this passage, 
Reischl gives no oth/r interpretation than " converted,” “ returned.” Bis- 
ping thinks that the adverbial rendering is contrary to New Testament 
usage. Bishop Laurent 2 3 too is emphatically opposed to it and says: “ It is 
undeniable that our Lord’s words ‘ and thou being once converted ’ have 
been regarded by many as a mere Hebraism, equivalent to ‘ in thy turn/ 
without any allusion to conversion. . . . But we must notice that nowhere 
in St. Luke’s gospel nor in the Acts of the Apostles has the word, that 
occurs here in the Greek and Latin texts, an adverbial sense, nor can it be 
understood as ‘ in thy turn,’ and consequently it should not be rendered 
so here.” Knabenbauer* too thinks that it cannot be taken adverbially. 
Hugo Grotius, however, is of the opinion: plerique “ conversus ” interpre- 
tantur poenitentia ductus. Ceterum mihi id probari non potest ; nam ex 
verbis praecedentibus periculum intelligi poterat, non lapsus. Quare alios 
sequi malo qui Hebraismum putant esse. In support of this view he quote s 
Ps. lxxxiv. 7: Deus, tu conversus vivificabis nos, and proceeds to paraphra se 


1 In Ps. xliii. Ambrosius: Denique flevit et paleas suas lavit et in illis 
tentationibus meruit, ut pro se Christus interveniret. Quanto majus est 
patrocinium, quam perturbationis illius tentamentum. 

2 Das heilige Evangelium, 1878, p. 490. 

3 Comm, in Lucam: at negandum esse hie cerni posse ilium quern volunt 
hebraismum. 




90 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


the passage as follows: tu quoque olhn vicissim fratres confirma, i.e., da 
operant, ne in fide deficiant, nempe pro ipsis orans, sicut ego pro te cro. But 
in the verse quoted from the Old Testament, the reference is to the repe¬ 
tition of the same action by the same agent ( Deus ) ; in the present case not 
only the agents, but also their actions are different. Grotius seems to have 
noticed this himself, and, in order to secure similarity of action in the two 
clauses, he explains the charge confirma fratres thus: Ora pro ipsis sicut 
ego pro te oro. In this way he apparently convinced himself that conversus 
might be taken adverbially, although by this interpretation he made an es¬ 
sential modification in the lofty duty assigned to St. Peter. We may sum 
up the various arguments regarding this, passage and state as the result: 
the theory that conversus is a Hebraism is, from the grammatical point of 
view, very doubtful, and therefore of little value; the great majority of 
commentators do not favor this interpretation. 

Taking into account the facts already adduced, we cannot be surprised 
if it is chiefly from the context that some scholars try to derive a conclusive 
argument in' support of the adverbial interpretation of the participle con¬ 
versus. They maintain that our Lord's words contain no reference at all 
to St. Peter's denial and repentance, and therefore the adverbial interpre¬ 
tation of conversus is the only one admissible. Schrader writes: Quodsi 
Christus significata morali Petri conversione moralem ejus aversionem ac 
lapsum adsignificasset, defectionis illius causam ex ductu sermonis nemo 
aliam posset habere, praeter indicatam prius satanae cribrationem. Atqui in 
cribratione hac, quae una eademque omnium esset apostolorum, unum 
Simonem voluit Dominus singulariter munitum ; non potuit igitur idem 
Dominus ad illud casus specimen alludere, in quo unus Petrus singulariter 
invenitur infirmus. Ecquid impium istud absurdumque probares, cribra¬ 
tionem satanae potiorem Christi precibus validioremque fuisse? Satanicam 
ergo operam, cujus Dominus meminit, directam existimes oportet adversus 
futuram Petri ejusque apostolici principatus oUovonlav, et ad earn ref eras 
pariter impositum Petri officium, quo iTricrrptyas, conversus fratres suos con- 
firmet .* In reply we may say: 

(i) During the night of the Passion, Simon Peter was exposed to an 
extraordinary temptation, because he alone, in spite of his Master’s warn¬ 
ing, ran into exceptional danger, by entering the atrium of the high priest’s 
house. 

(ii) If in Christ’s prayer for Peter we see a reference to his fall, it is 
still quite impossible to maintain that Satan’s temptation proved mightier 
than our Lord’s intercession. Such an argument would be correct only if 
Peter’s momentary fall had been at the same time a lapse from the faith, 
because Christ had prayed that his faith might not fail. As early a writer 
as St. Ambrose perceived the fallacy of this argument, and in the passage 
already quoted asks emphatically: Quanto majus est patrocinium (nempe 
Christi pro Petro intervenientis ), quant perturbationis illius tentamentum? 
When Christ prayed for the preservation of St. Peter’s faith, He knew that, 
in accordance with God’s wise permission, the apostle would fall for a 
moment, but, knowing that His prayer was heard, He also knew that Peter 
would rise again from his momentary fall, and would thenceforth remain 
firm and unshaken in his confession of the faith, and would also teach it, 
after having, as a result of His Master’s intercession, preserved it intact 
amidst the greatest dangers. 


1 . c. 180. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 91 

(iii) Christ’s intercession applied to the present time, but also in a 
peculiar way to the future, as the analysis of His remaining words will 
show. 

Our Lord’s charge to Peter was: “Confirm thy brethren.” 
From the context we see that the word “brethren” applies 
primarily to the other apostles, for our Saviour had just been 
speaking of dangers to which all alike were exposed. At the 
same time, however, the word includes all the faithful, who, 
according to Biblical usage, are termed brethren because they 
are united by the bond of faith active in charity, so as to form 
one holy brotherhood. All these brethren, the apostles and 
the faithful in general, were entrusted by Christ to Simon 
Peter’s care. He did not say in what respect Peter was to 
confirm his brethren, but it is quite clear from the context that 
it was in the faith. In the case of Peter Satan attacked his 
faith, first and foremost, and the same thing would occur in 
the case of the brethren also, since their faith was their most 
precious possession. Hence Maldonatus follows St. John 
Chrysostom in saying: Diabolus fidem, caput Christiani horn- 
inis, et te ceterorum caput petet, ego te maxime fidemque tuam 
protegam. Peter was to confirm his brethren in the true faith. 
The answer to the question why that task was entrusted es¬ 
pecially to this apostle is suggested in the reply given to the 
other question, why did Christ pray for Peter, though announc¬ 
ing that all the apostles would be equally exposed to assaults 
from the devil. We may, however, go further, and assert: 
The verb GT^pl^eiv , from which the noun GT^piypa, support, 
foundation, is derived, shows us why Peter was selected to 
confirm his brethren; it was because our Lord had appointed 
him to be the foundation of the Church. Thus, to confirm the 
brethren in the faith is a duty which Peter has to perform, as 
being the foundation chosen by Christ for His Church. The 
close connection between confirming the brethren and Peter’s 
primacy is stated by Theophylact in the following words: 
tovto yap (Scil . t 6 (TTrjpi^eiv tovs ade\(f>ovs) 7 rpo arj/cei <tol ws juer’ kpl 
6vtl rrjs kKK\rjcrtas Trkrpq. Kal arr) plypar t, hoc est: hoc enim ( scil. 
confirmare fratres) te decet, qui post me ecclesiae petra es et 
fundamentum. Theophylact speaks of confirming the brethren 
in the faith as a duty which Peter has to perform in his capacity 
as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church. 


92 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


How and when must Peter confirm the brethren in the faith? A con¬ 
sideration of the manner in which Satan, the sworn enemy of all truth, op¬ 
poses revealed truth, will facilitate the answering of the first part of the 
question. Satan not only tries to weaken the faith of individuals, but also 
to lead individuals and entire nations into apostasy, to defile, distort, and 
completely misrepresent the deposit of revealed truth left with the Church. 
Consequently it is Peter’s duty, in his capacity as head of the Church, to 
use the authority conferred upon him by his office, to warn men against 
apostasy, and to resist all perversion and distortion of the faith by pro¬ 
claiming in a solemn and convincing manner what is truth and what is 
error. Thus he preserves revealed truth pure and intact, and upholds the 
unity of the Church that is based upon profession of the same faith. This 
is the task that Peter is required to perform for all his brethren, i.e., for 
all the faithful collectively, without any exception. When was this task, 
included in his primacy, imposed upon him? Our Saviour indicates the be¬ 
ginning of his office by the use of the adverb aliquando, which in this pas¬ 
sage refers to the future. Its beginning coincides with the moment when 
Peter became the Vicar of Christ, was entrusted with the office of supreme 
shepherd set over the whole of Christ’s flock, and was ordered to feed, rule, 
teach, and guide the faithful. St. John 1 tells us that this took place in 
Galilee, near the sea of Tiberias, not long before our Lord’s ascension. 
Thenceforth Peter has had to exercise his office perpetually, since Satan’s 
attempts to pervert the truth of the gospel never cease. This duty can be 
discharged only if Peter always preserves pure and inviolate the saving 
truths deposited in the Church, and, as head of the Church, proclaims them 
openly and solemnly, using his authority as Vicar of Christ. When our 
Lord said: “ Confirm thy brethren,” He appointed Peter supreme teacher 
of the universal Church, and laid upon him the obligation of using his 
teaching office for the good and protection of the Church. Did He equip 
His apostle with grace sufficient to discharge his exalted functions? No 
one can deny that He did so, without at the same time denying the whole 
of the New Testament scheme of salvation, a fundamental principle of 
which is that Christ supplies each member of His Messianic kingdom with 
the grace needful for the discharge of the duties laid upon him. St. Augus¬ 
tine states this truth very beautifully, when he says: Prius lex jubebat, sed 
non juvabat ; post Christi adventum et jubet et juvat. This being the case 
we must adopt the following line of argument with reference to the sub¬ 
ject that we have been considering: Simon Peter was appointed supreme 
teacher of faith to the universal Church of Christ, but he could fulfill the 
obligations thus laid upon him only by perpetually preserving revealed truth 
pure and intact. Consequently when he received the command “ Confirm 
thy brethren,” which imposed upon him the duty of exercising this supreme 
teaching office, he received at the same time the assurance that the grace 
necessary for the discharge of this duty would be forthcoming, so that the 
decisions on matters of faith, promulgated by him in his capacity as Vicar 
of Christ and chief shepherd of the Church, for the purpose of confirming 
his brethren in the faith and of averting error and heresy, are infallible. 

Like the primacy, the chief pastoral office was not limited to Peter per¬ 
sonally, but passed on to his successors, the bishops of Rome, to all of 
whom the command “ Confirm thy brethren ” is addressed. Therefore the 
conclusions, that we have drawn from the charge given in the first in- 


1 


xxi. 15-17. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 93 

stance to Peter, are applicable to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. 1 A dis¬ 
cussion of the further dogmatic and historical grounds for this truth would 
carry us beyond the scope of the present work, and belong, strictly speak¬ 
ing, to the sphere of dogmatic theology. 


VIII. Prediction of the Apostles being Scandalized, 
and of Peter’s Denial 


Matthew xxvi. 31-35 

31. Then Jesus saith to them: All 
you shall be scandalized in me this 
night. For it is written: I will 
strike the shepherd, and the sheep 
of the flock shall be dispersed. 

32. But after I shall be risen 
again, I will go before you into 
Galilee. 

33. And Peter answering, said to 
him: Although all shall be scandal¬ 
ized in thee, I will never be scan¬ 
dalized. 

34. Jesus said to him, Amen I 
say to thee, that in this night before 
the cock crow, thou wilt deny me 
thrice. 

35. Peter saith to him: Yea, 
though I should die with thee, I 
will not deny thee. And in like 
manner said all the disciples. 

Luke xxii. 33, 34 

33. Who said to him: Lord, I am 
ready to go with thee both into 
prison and to death. 

34. And he said: I say to thee, 
Peter, the cock shall not crow this 
day, till thou thrice deniest that thou 
knowest me. 


Mark xiv. 27-31 

27. And Jesus saith to them: You 
will all be scandalized in my regard 
this night: for it is written, I will 
strike the shepherd, and the sheep 
shall be dispersed. 

28. But after I shall be risen 
again, I will go before you into 
Galilee. 

29. But Peter saith to him: Al¬ 
though all shall be scandalized in 
thee, yet not I. 

30. And Jesus saith to him: 
Amen I say to thee, to-day even 
in this night, before the cock crow 
twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. 

31. But he spoke the more ve¬ 
hemently : Although I should die to¬ 
gether with thee, I will not deny thee. 
And in like manner also said they all. 


John xiii. 36-38 

36. Simon Peter saith to him: 
Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus 
answered: Whither I go, thou canst 
not follow me now, but thou shalt 
follow hereafter. 

37. Peter saith to him: Why can¬ 
not I follow thee now? I will lay 
down my life for thee. 

38. Jesus answered him: Wilt 
thou lay down thy life for me? 
Amen, Amen, I say to thee, the 
cock shall not crow, till thou deny 
me thrice. 


Chronological questions. These relate to the following 
points: 

(i) Do the accounts given by the four evangelists refer to one 


Compare Cone. Vatic, sess. iv. Constit. dogm. I de eccl., cap. 3. 





94 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


and the same scene, each recording some particular detail in it ? 
or was Peter’s denial predicted twice or even three times in 
succession ? 

(ii) If it was but once predicted, where did this occur? in the 
Cenaculum on Mount Sion, or on the way to Gethsemani ? Com¬ 
mentators are divided in opinion on these points. 

St. Augustine 1 thinks that our Lord uttered three predictions of St. 
Peter’s denial, although he admits the possibility of their identity, and goes 
on to say nisi magis moveret, quod tam diversa, non tantum verba sed 
etiam sententias Domini praemittunt, quibus permotu Petrus illam praesum- 
tionem proferret, vel cum Domino vel pro Domino moriendi, ut magis 
cogant intelligi, ter cum expressisse praesumtionem suas diversis locis ser- 
monis Christi et ter illi a Domino responsum, quod eum esset ante galli 
cantum ter negaturus. According to St. Augustine the three predictions 
occurred successively, first the one recorded by St. John, then that recorded 
by St. Luke, and lastly that recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark. The 
commentators who think that there were two predictions, are not agreed in 
their attempt of identifying the gospel narratives. Bynaeus 2 thinks that the 
synoptic evangelists all record the same occurrence, and that St. John 
speaks of something that took place on the occasion of a supper on the 
evening of the I3th-I4th Nisan. Comely 3 also thinks that there were two 
predictions of St. Peter’s denial, but he differs from Bynaeus in regarding the 
accounts given by St. John and St. Luke as relating to the one, and those 
given by St. Matthew and St. Mark as relating to the other. These two 
scholars do not, moreover, agree as to the order of events. Langen places 
the first prediction immediately before the departure from the Supper 
Room, and the second later. Comely places the first before the institution 
of the Holy Eucharist, and the second after the departure from the Supper 
Room. The great majority of commentators believe that there was only one 
prediction, because on all essential points, such as the form of words used 
by our Lord and St. Peter’s reception of the prophecy, all the four accounts 
agree perfectly. 

Where did Christ foretell the scandal of the apostles and His denial by 
Peter? Because St. Matthew and St. Mark record the occurrence imme¬ 
diately after speaking of Christ’s leaving the Supper Room with His dis¬ 
ciples, most exegetes assume that He uttered these words on the way to the 
Mount of Olives. St. Luke, who is the most accurate in his account of 
events, mentions the departure from the Supper Room later, 4 and a com¬ 
parison of John xiii. 36^-38 with John, xviii. 1, seems to show that all this 
conversation must have taken place in the Cenaculum. Finally, the tem¬ 
poral particle rorc, with which St. Matthew introduces his account, need 
not necessarily refer to the verse immediately preceding, and consequently 
we may assume that in all probability the prediction of the scandal of the 
apostles, and of Peter’s denial was uttered whilst our Lord was still in the 
Supper Room, just before He went out. 5 


1 De cons, evang. 3, 5, 6, 7. 2 II, 1, 3. 

3 Cursus script, sacr., libr. introd. Ill, 299. Knabenb.: Petrum bis esse 

monitum, certe non est improbabile. 

4 xxii. 39. 5 Tir.: sub egressum, sed antequam excederent. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


95 


Elucidation of the biblical accounts. In arranging the various 
points recorded by the four evangelists, it is best to follow 
Bynaeus, 1 with whom many recent writers agree. 

The circumstances that led up to the prediction of the apostles* 
scandal and of Peter’s denial were the following: Christ had 
finished the Paschal supper and had instituted the sacrifice of 
the New Testament, and then began to speak solemnly of the 
glorious effects of His death on the cross, to which He alluded 
as if it had already occurred. His exaltation to the right hand 
of the Father was approaching, and so He foretold His de¬ 
parture and spoke of the commandment of charity that He 
would leave to His disciples, calling it the characteristic of true 
discipleship. Peter, unwilling to accept the news of their com¬ 
ing separation from their Master, and loath to leave Him, said: 
“ Lord, whither goest thou ? ” whereupon our Saviour answered 
indirectly: “ Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but 
thou shalt follow hereafter.” Jesus was going to die, and Peter 
could not follow Him, partly because he was not yet fully pre¬ 
pared to face the horrors of death, and partly because he had 
to act as chief shepherd of the flock after his Master’s departure. 
But in prophetic language our Lord foretold that at a later date 
Peter too would tread the path of suffering: “ thou shalt follow 
hereafter.” The ardent apostle declared that he was ready then 
to die: “ Why cannot I follow thee now ? I will lay down my 
life for thee.” Christ expressed His doubt on the subject re¬ 
garding which Peter spoke so confidently, and said: “ Wilt thou 
lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock 
shall not crow till thou deny me thrice.” 

At this point, interrupting His conversation with Peter, and 
turning to all the apostles, our Lord foretold that during that 
very night they all would be scandalized in Him. 

This prediction is recorded only by St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
It is not difficult to discover the reason why they were scandal¬ 
ized or “shocked”; possibly our Lord’s agony in Gethsemani 
was shocking to them, and certainly they were shocked at His 
arrest, and at all the subsequent events of the night. But it is 
more difficult to see how they were scandalized. Some commen¬ 
tators think that they did not lose their faith, or even waver in 


1 II, i, 3 - 



96 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

it, but that they simply took flight in fear. 1 But the apostles’ 
behavior when the first tidings of the resurrection reached them 
shows that this explanation, which has only an external motive, 
is insufficient. Their scandal consisted probably in the fact that 
they thought themselves disappointed in all their expectations, 
because their ideas of the Messiah were still not perfectly free 
from base delusions, and consequently the events of the night 
gave a violent shock to their devotion and love toward their 
Master, and this attitude of mind manifested itself in their tak¬ 
ing flight. 

The definite prediction of their being scandalized served to 
make them recognize the omniscience of their Lord, though He 
was betrayed and bound, and this made it easier for them to 
recover from their momentary loss of confidence in Him. With 
this end in view Jesus pointed out that both their dispersion and 
their eventual re-assembly had been foretold by the prophets. 
The words: “ I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the 
flock shall be dispersed ” are a free, not a literal, quotation from 
Zacharias. 2 Both an immediate and a Messianic interpretation 
was assigned to them, and they were fulfilled when Jesus, the 
Good Shepherd, was taken prisoner and His apostles scattered. 
But Zacharias went on to foretell the re-assembling of the scat¬ 
tered flock, for the next words to those quoted are “ I will turn 
my hand to the little ones,” and in the same way Jesus held out 
to His followers the joyful prospect of gathering again around 
Him, for He said: “ After I shall be risen again, I will go before 
you into Galilee.” It must not be inferred from the allusion to 
Galilee and from the fact that St. Matthew records only the one 
appearance of our risen Lord to His apostles which took place 
in Galilee, that He had not previously appeared to them in Jeru¬ 
salem. Some commentators see a reference to other previous 
appearances in the verb “go before.” Our Lord spoke of ful¬ 
filling His promise in Galilee because the apostles were natives 
of that province and had there been called to follow Jesus. He 
did not merely appear to them there after the resurrection, but 
remained for some time in familiar intercourse with them, en- 


1 Maid.: non fidem perdituros, nec in fide vacillaturos aut negaturos 
Christum, sed deserturos. Menochius makes the same remark; similarly 
Lyranus at an earlier date. 

2 xiii. 7. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 97 

dowed them all with apostolic powers, and appointed Peter to 
be their chief and the supreme head of the Church. 

Various explanations have been given of Peter’s words: 

Although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scan¬ 
dalized. ” Some commentators 1 adopt St. John Chrysostom’s 
view, and say that Peter here committed three faults: he failed 
to respect Christ’s definite assertion, he exalted himself above 
his fellow apostles, and in rash self-confidence laid claim to a 
firmness that was beyond his reach without the help of God’s 
grace. This view is objectively quite correct, but from the sub¬ 
jective standpoint we must notice that the words were uttered 
by the impetuous apostle at a moment of intense excitement, due 
to our Lord’s prediction. PTence St. Jerome 2 remarks: non est 
tenieritas nec mendacium, sed fides apostoli Petri et ardens affec - 
tus erga Dominum. Peter’s fall should certainly be a warn¬ 
ing to every servant of God to pray with fear and humility for 
grace to stand firm amidst all dangers and temptations. 

Peter’s behavior caused our Lord to predict a grievous fall 
on the part of this very apostle. He began with the solemn and 
emphatic words “Amen I say to thee,” and the prediction is 
definite and detailed; Jesus foretold the manner, time, and hour 
of his fall, and even the number of his denials. St. John’s ac¬ 
count is the least precise, for he speaks only of a threefold denial 
before cockcrow. St. Luke indicates the time more clearly, since 
he says that the denial will take place this day; St. Mark is still 
more exact, “ today, even in this night,” and “ before the cock 
crow twice”; all the other evangelists say simply before cock¬ 
crow. The four evangelists all record our Lord’s prediction 
of Peter’s threefold denial, but only St. Luke says that the denial 
would take the form of denying all knowledge of Christ. St. 
Luke is also the only evangelist who tells us that Peter protested 
his readiness to go to prison with Jesus. This analysis of the 
text in the four gospels shows that in spite of differences in de¬ 
tail, there is complete agreement in essentials. 

St. Mark says that Peter will deny his Master thrice before 
the cock crows twice; the other evangelists say before cockcrow. 
Some commentators lay great stress upon this difference, but 
there is no difficulty in accounting for it. The crowing men- 


1 e.g., Menochius. 


3 ad Matth. xxvi. 33. 



98 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

tioned by Matthew, Luke, and John is not to be understood as 
the action of any one cock, but cockcrow, or gallicinium, denoted 
a particular part of the night. Thus all that is meant is that the 
denial would take place before the hour known by this name. 

Ancient writers are not agreed as to the beginning and end of the galli¬ 
cinium, but St. Mark, the evangelist who speaks of a cock crowing twice, 
throws light on the subject, for he divides the whole night into four parts, 
viz., evening, midnight, cockcrow, and morning. 1 This is a division that ob¬ 
viously corresponds with the four watches of the night, so that cockcrow 
coincided with the third watch, and lasted from midnight until 3 a.m. 
Now Samuel Bochartus, to whom we shall refer again in the section dealing 
with St. Peter’s denial, says that a cock crows first media node, then medio 
spatio inter mediam noctem et auroram, and this second crowing is called by 
many the secundus cantus. The second crowing at the close of the period 
termed gallicinium seems to be that of which St. Mark speaks. Many other 
commentators, however, place the gallicinium at the beginning of the fourth 
watch. In opposition to the theory stated above it is urged that nowhere 
else is cockcrow used to designate any precise hour. It should, however, 
be noticed that St. Mark, in whose case the difficulty arises, shows plainly 
what part of the night was known as cockcrow. The cock came originally 
from India, but was domesticated in Babylonia at a very early date. The 
Jews for a long time regarded the bird with a kind of abhorrence, because 
the Babylonians considered it sacred, but ever since the return of the Jews 
from captivity they seem to have kept poultry. In the fourth book of 
Esdras 2 the relation in which Jehovah stood to the people of Israel is de¬ 
scribed as that of a hen gathering her chickens under her wings, and Christ 
used the same comparison to express His loving care for the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem. 8 We learn from the New Testament 4 that in the time of Christ 
the Jews used eggs as articles of diet. The rabbinical statements on this 
subject will be discussed in the section dealing with Peter’s denial. 

Simon Peter did not take the warning, so plainly given, to 
heart, but protested his willingness to die for his Master. The 
other apostles followed his example and made similar protesta¬ 
tions, in order not to seem to have less love of Jesus and less 
readiness to suffer for Him. The Venerable Bede 5 remarks: 
Valida est ut mors dilectio. Per amorem mentis non timuerunt 
damnum mortis, sed vana fuit praesumtio Humana sine protec¬ 
tion divina } juxta illud psalmographi: nisi Dominus custodierit 
civitatem, frustra vigilat, qui custodit earn. 6 


1 xiii. 35. 2 1. 30. 3 Matthew xxiii. 37. 

4 Luke xi. 12. * Comm, in Matth. 6 Ps. cxxvi. 1. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER 


99 


IX. The Struggle Destined for the Apostles 

Luke xxii. 35-38. 

35. When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want 
anything ? 

36. But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that 
hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let 
him sell his coat, and buy a sword. 

37. For I say to you, that this that is written, must yet be fulfilled in me, 
And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have 
an end. 

38. But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to 
them: It is enough. 

Our Saviour had previously sent out the apostles to preach the 
gospel in Israel, to use the miraculous powers bestowed upon 
them, and under their Master’s direction to prepare themselves 
for their future work. When instructing them before their de¬ 
parture, Pie impressed upon them that as poor servants of a 
poor Master they were to feel no anxiety about their means of 
support, but were to leave everything to God, in whose service 
they were employed. He said to them: “ Do not possess gold, 
nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, 
nor two coats, nor shoes nor a staff; for the workman is worthy 
of his meat.” 1 Our Saviour now refers to this former mission, 
and we learn from the apostles’ words that they had faithfully 
obeyed His orders, and had set out on their journey without 
money, food, or a change of clothing, and yet, by their own 
testimony, had suffered no hardships while carrying out their 
Master’s instructions. 

The apostles were called with a view to their future work. 
As long as Jesus was with them on earth they were being pre¬ 
pared for their real missionary task, that began only after His 
return to heaven. On the former occasion He had warned them 
of the perils awaiting them, 2 and now, His own departure being 
imminent, He told them in brief but touching words how great 
the dangers were that they would have to encounter. He said 
that circumstances had changed, and not only must the apostles 
carry with them money and food, but even a sword was so 
necessary that they must sell their outer garment in order to buy 
one. Commentators differ in their explanation of this state- 


1 Matthew x. 9, 10. 


2 Matthew x. 16-39. 



ioo THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


ment. Many of them do not take the words “purse,” “scrip,” 
and “ sword ” literally, nor do they see any command in the 
words addressed to the apostles, but think that these words in¬ 
dicate vividly and in prophetic form the privations and perils 
that they would suffer in the future. 1 

The word “ sword ” certainly must not be understood as de¬ 
noting a real, material weapon; this is plain for several reasons: 

(i) Our Lord said to Simon Peter: “ Put up again thy sword 
into its place, for all that take the sword shall perish with the 
sword.” 2 

(ii) Jesus offered no resistance when He was arrested, bound, 
and crucified. 

(iii) In their writings the apostles speak of an exclusively 
spiritual equipment for the soldiers of Christ, 3 and especially 
of a sword which is the word of God. 4 

(iv) The apostles underwent persecution and laid down their 
lives for the gospel, but never had recourse to the sword against 
their opponents. 

In our opinion these words of Christ are not to be taken liter¬ 
ally, and yet they are not merely a prediction of impending 
dangers, for they contain a command as to the apostles’ behavior 
in time of peril. If this be correct, the meaning of the passage 
is this: Jesus predicts the dangers; He calls upon the apostles 
to be ready to suffer hardships, to practise self-renunciation, 
and to resist their enemies with all the spiritual weapons at their 
disposal. The argument that the apostles would not have under¬ 
stood our Lord if He had intended to convey these ideas to them 
is untenable; in the first place our Saviour Himself, as we shall 
see in discussing the next verse, hinted that only in time to come 
would they fully grasp His meaning, and, secondly, the apostles 
showed in word and deed that, as time went on, the true mean¬ 
ing of His utterance was revealed to them. 


Cornelius a Lap. : Verba Christi non sunt imperantis . . . sed praenun- 
tiantis instantem sibi et apostolis persecutionem acerrimam, quae tanta erit 
ut cibus et gladius ad tutelam vitae ipsorum comparanda esse videantur 
no mini rem reique difficultatem humana prudentia aestimanti. Menochius 
concludes his discussion of the passage with the remark: Itaque (Christus) 
Tr PeVam 4 i 9 lad ^ m nihil aliud signified, quam iniquam tem- 
\>°rum conditioner^. The same view is taken by Calmet and others 

2 Matthew xxvi. 52. 

3 Ephes. vi. 16, 17. 

4 Hebr. iv. 12. 



PASCHAL FEAST AND THE LAST SUPPER ioi 


When He first sent forth the apostles, our Saviour had warned 
them that, as His disciples, they could expect no other lot than 
that assigned to Him, their Master. 1 Now He tells them of the 
fate awaiting Him, and explains why He has laid upon them 
the command that we have just been considering. The time has 
come for the Messianic prophecy to be fulfilled: “ And with the 
wicked was he reckoned,” 2 i.e., He was looked upon and treated 
as a malefactor. This prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus died 
a shameful death on the cross, between two thieves. Sorrowful 
times then began for the disciples, for not only was their loving 
Master no longer with them, but, as St. Bede says in the passage 
quoted above, they now encountered the scorn and hatred that 
had been heaped upon the Messiah. The history of the apostolic 
age bears witness to this fact, and St. Peter, the chief of the 
apostles, says plainly that Christians suffered persecution simply 
because they were followers of Christ. 3 By way of explanation 
our Lord added that the prophecy of Isaias must now be ful¬ 
filled because the time had come for the fulfillment of all the 
prophecies relating to the Messiah, and, consequently, to the end 
of His work on earth. 

The apostles did not then understand our Lord’s meaning, but 
thought of an actual sword, that they would at once have to use. 
So they said: “ Lord, behold here are two swords.” Although 
the Greek /mxaipa means dagger as well as sword, commentators 
with hardly an exception accept the latter rendering. The pres¬ 
ence of the weapons is accounted for in two ways: either they 
were accidentally left in the Supper Room, or the disciples had 
carried them thither. The latter is more probable, because 
Simon Peter, after leaving the Supper Room, was still in posses¬ 
sion of a sword. St. John Chrysostom thinks that the two 
“ swords ” were two knives, one of which had been used to kill 
the Paschal lamb, and the other to cut up its flesh. Our Lord’s 
words, “ It is enough,” probably mean nothing more than that 
He intended to avoid further discussion of this subject. The- 
ophylact paraphrases thus: bene, dimitte, as breaking off the 
conversation and continues: facit autem hoc Dominus, quando 
videt, discipulos non intelligere dictum; transit et eventui rerum 
permittit explicare dictorum intelligentiam . 4 To regard the 


1 Matthew x. 24, 25. 

3 1 Peter iv. 14 seqq. 


3 Isa. liii. 12. 

4 Comm, ad loc. 



io2 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


expression as ironical seems quite out of keeping with the seri¬ 
ousness of the occasion, and it is extremely doubtful whether 
Jesus ever spoke ironically. There is another mystical and 
allegorical interpretation of the two swords in the apostles’ 
possession, according to which they represented the spiritual 
and secular power, one being used by the ecclesiastical authori¬ 
ties, the other by the State in defence of the Church. 1 


1 So Benedict, viii.; compare Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, vi. 346 seqq. 


SECTION III 

CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 

This section contains the account of what occurred in Geth- 
semani, the garden at the foot of the Mount of Olives, during 
the hours of the night between Holy Thursday and Good 
Friday. It deals with two principal topics: (i) Our Lord’s 
agony, and (2) His arrest. 

The synoptic writers all allude to both subjects; St. John is 
silent regarding the former, but records the latter. Apart from 
some very small differences, the accounts given by Matthew and 
Mark of our Lord’s agony are in complete agreement. Luke’s 
version is shorter and displays the following divergences in 
matters of detail: (1) He says nothing of the hymn sung before 
leaving the Cenaculum; (2) he does not call the garden Geth- 
semani, but speaks simply of the Mount of Olives as the scene 
of the agony, adding, however, the remark that Jesus went 
thither “according to His custom”; (3) he does not say that 
the three disciples who had previously witnessed our Lord’s 
transfiguration were now also chosen to witness His agony, but 
he states somewhat precisely how far our Lord went in front 
of Flis disciples before He began His prayer; (4) he condenses 
the report given by the other evangelists of Christ’s going three 
times to pray; but (5 ) he adds two important points by record¬ 
ing the apparition of an angel strengthening Jesus, and the 
bloody sweat. 

All four evangelists record the arrest of our Lord; St. Mat¬ 
thew’s account is most detailed, and St. Mark’s holds very closely 
to it. Both state that Judas had agreed with the soldiers to 
point out Jesus to them by means of a kiss, and both also record 
the flight of all the disciples. The rebuke to Simon Peter is not 
mentioned by St. Mark. St. Luke’s account is more general, 
although he gives some details that serve to complete the nar¬ 
rative of the other evangelists. Such are: the fact that Peter 
cut off the right ear of the high priest’s servant; that Jesus 


io 4 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


addressed His remonstrance to “the chief priests and magis¬ 
trates of the temple and the ancients/’ and, lastly, that Jesus 
declared His enemies to be acting in the service of the powers 
of darkness. 

St. John tells us, what is only suggested by St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, that the band which went out to arrest Jesus con¬ 
sisted of a cohort of Roman soldiers under the command of a 
tribune, as well as of a number of Jews. We also learn from 
him that, besides swords and staves, torches were carried by the 
men; that they were forced to admit that they were seeking 
Jesus of Nazareth, and when our Lord said: “ I am he,” they 
went backward and fell to the ground. Finally St. John 
alone has preserved the name of the servant whose ear Peter 
cut off. 

St. Mark alone speaks of a young man who followed Jesus 
for a time after the flight of the disciples, but when men at¬ 
tempted to seize him he fled, leaving his sole garment in their 
hands. 


I. Christ’s Agony in the Garden of 
Gethsemani 


Matthew xxvi. 30, 36-40 

30. And a hymn being said, they 
went out unto Mount Olivet. 

36. Then Jesus came with them 
into a country place which is called 
Gethsemani, and he said to his dis¬ 
ciples : Sit you here, till I go yonder 
and pray. 

37. And taking with him Peter 
and the two sons of Zebedee, he 
began to grow sorrowful and to be 
sad. 

38. Then he saith to them: My 
soul is sorrowful even unto death; 
stay you here and watch with me. 

39. And going a little further he 
fell upon his face, praying, and say¬ 
ing: My Father, if it be possible let 
this chalice pass from me. Never¬ 
theless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 

40. And he cometh to his disciples, 
and findeth them asleep, and he saith 
to Peter: What? Could you not 
watch one hour with me? 


Luke xxii. 39-45 

39. And going out he went ac¬ 
cording to his custom to the mount 
of Olives. And his disciples also 
followed him. 

40. And when he was come to the 
place, he said to them: Pray, lest 
you enter into temptation. 

41. And he was withdrawn away 
from them a stone’s cast, and kneel¬ 
ing down he prayed, 

42. Saying: Father, if thou wilt, 
remove this chalice from me; but 
yet not my will, but thine be done. 

43. And there appeared to him an 
Angel from heaven, strengthening 
him. And being in an agony, he 
prayed the longer. 

44. And his sweat became as 
drops of blood trickling down upon 
the ground. 

45. And when he rose up from 
prayer, and was come to his dis¬ 
ciples, he found them sleeping for 
sorrow. 



CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


!°S 


Matthew xxvi. 41-46 

41. Watch ye, and pray that ye 
enter not into temptation. The 
spirit indeed is willing but the flesh 
is weak. 

42. Again the second time, he 
went and prayed, saying: My 
Father, if this chalice may not pass 
away, but I must drink it, thy will 
be done. 

43- And he cometh again, and 
findeth them sleeping; for their eyes 
were heavy. 

44. And leaving them he went 
again; and he prayed the third time 
saying the self same word. 

45. Then he cometh to his dis¬ 
ciples, and saith to them: Sleep ye 
now and take your rest; behold the 
hour is at hand, and the son of man 
shall be betrayed into the hands of 
sinners. 

46. Rise, let us go; behold he is 
at hand that will betray me. 


Luke xxii. 46 

46. And he saith to them: Why 
sleep you? arise, pray lest you enter 
into temptation. 


John xviii. 1 

1. When Jesus had said these 
things, he went forth with his dis¬ 
ciples over the brook Cedron, where 
there was a garden, into which he en¬ 
tered with his disciples. 


Mark xiv. 26, 32-42 


26. And when they had said an 
hymn, they went forth to the mount 
of Olives. 

32. And they come to a farm 
called Gethsemani. And he saith to 
his disciples: Sit you here, while I 
pray. 

33. And he taketh Peter and 
James and John with him; and he 
began to fear and to be heavy. 

34. And he saith to them: My 
soul is sorrowful even unto death; 
stay you here and watch. 

35. And when he was gone for¬ 
ward a little, he fell flat on the 
ground; and he prayed that if it 
might be, the hour might pass from 
him. 

36. And he saith: Abba, Father, 
all things are possible to thee, re¬ 
move this chalice from me, but not 
what I will, but what thou wilt. 


37. And he cometh, and findeth 
them sleeping. And he saith to 
Peter: Simon, sleepest thou? couldst 
thou not watch one hour? 

38. Watch ye, and pray that ye 
enter not into temptation. The 
spirit indeed is willing, but the 
flesh is weak. 

39. And going away again, he 
prayed, saying the same words. 

40. And when he returned he 
found them again asleep (for their 
eyes were heavy) and they knew not 
what to answer him. 

41. And he cometh the third 
time, and saith to them: Sleep ye 
now and take your rest. It is 
enough; the hour is come; behold 
the son of man shall be betrayed 
into the hands of sinners. 

42. Rise up, let us go. Behold he 
that will betray me is at hand. 


The walk to the Mount of Olives. According to Maimonides 1 
the Paschal supper might not be prolonged beyond the midnight, 


Pesach. x. 9. 





io6 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


so probably our Lord walked to Gethsemani towards twelve 
o’clock in the night between Holy Thursday and Good Friday. 
To walk from the Supper Room, on the southwest corner of 
Mount Sion, to the Mount of Olives, five or six furlongs dis¬ 
tant from Jerusalem, would take less than half an hour. Ac¬ 
cording to St. Matthew and St. Mark, Jesus and His apostles 
went out after they had said a hymn. The phrase is so worded 
as to imply that Jesus joined in the song of praise, and this in¬ 
formation proves that our Saviour Himself authorized the 
inclusion of songs of praise in the liturgy. St. Paul 1 and not 
long afterwards the younger Pliny 2 bear witness to the existence 
of specially Christian hymns, by which the faithful sang the 
praises of God, but for a considerable time only Psalms and 
Canticles from the New Testament were admitted to the liturgy. 
As late as the year 633 the fourth synod of Toledo declared 
that it was not right to reject all the hymns composed by Hilary 
and Ambrose, and to allow only those taken from the Bible to 
be used in the services of the Church. 3 

Many commentators think that it was on the way to the Mount of Olives 
that our Lord foretold the scandal of the apostles and St. Peter’s denial. 
As has been already shown, however, it is more probable that this took place 
in the Supper Room, and the same remark applies also to our Saviour’s 
farewell discourse and prayer, recorded by St. John. 4 

Because our Lord walked to the Mount of Olives immediately after sup¬ 
per, some commentators think that He cannot have kept the Pasch on the 
proper day, like all the other Jews, since in that case He would have had to 
remain indoors until the morning. This theory has been discussed and 
proved untenable in the section in which we considered the day of the Last 
Supper. 

The Mount of Olives is situated to the east of the city of 
Jerusalem, and, in order to reach it, the brook Cedron had to 
be crossed. The name Cedron means the black stream, because 
the water was muddy and dirty; St. John uses a word that means 
“ the winter stream,” for as a rule there was water in the river¬ 
bed only in winter. The Cedron rises a short distance to the 
northwest of Jerusalem, near the tombs of the Judges, flows past 
the city, and after a course of about twenty-five miles falls into 
the Dead Sea, through a very narrow ravine, called by Christians 
Mary’s valley, Wadi Sitti Mar jam. Jesus crossed the brook 


1 Ephes. v. 19; Col. iii. 16. 

* Hefele, Konziliengesch. 3, 81. 


2 x. ep. 97. 

4 John xv. i-xvii. 26. 



CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


107 


by the bridge near St. Stephen’s Gate, and a few steps farther 
on turned into the garden of an estate known as Gethsemani. 

Ingenious attempts have been made to show that the evangelists contra¬ 
dicted one another as to our Lord’s destination; some critics say that the 
synoptic writers speak of Christ as going to the top of the Mount of Olives, 
whereas St. John represents Him as stopping in Gethsemani, at the foot of 
the hill. We may notice that the preposition els t used in the synoptic gos¬ 
pels, frequently indicates direction toward, rather than the actual destination; 
and the context proves that it bears this meaning here, for the evangelists 
begin by stating in a general way that Jesus went to (toward) the Mount of 
Olives, and immediately afterwards they speak of His halting in Geth¬ 
semani. 1 We are probably justified in assuming from St. Luke’s account 
that Jesus had spent the preceding nights in Gethsemani. 2 * St. Jerome tells 
us * that a church of considerable size once stood on the spot sanctified by 
our Saviour’s agony, and thus rendered forever sacred to every Christian. 
The present garden of Gethsemani is on the way to the Mount of Olives; it 
is surrounded by a wall, on the inner side of which are the Stations of the 
Cross, and contains seven or eight very large olive trees, which according to 
tradition date back to the time of Christ. Somewhat to the north of the 
garden is the Grotto of the Agony, a cavern about 55 feet in length, 30 feet 
in breadth, and 14 feet in height, containing three altars. 4 It was here that 
our Saviour endured the agony of which the synoptic evangelists speak. 

On entering the garden Jesus left eight of the apostles be¬ 
hind, and went forward with Peter, James, and John, the three 
who had on other occasions been especially privileged. They 
had witnessed His transfiguration, 5 and were now to witness 
also His deepest abasement. As He walked with them through 
the garden our Lord was overpowered with such great distress 
of mind and trembling of body that the evangelists speak of 
Him as beginning to grow sorrowful and sad, and even to fear 
and be heavy. 6 St. Jerome 7 sees in the words “He began” 
evidence that Jesus freely accepted all the painful accompani¬ 
ments of sorrow and horror. St. Bede expresses a similar 
opinion. 8 As soon as they reached the spot where the three dis¬ 
ciples were to remain Jesus gave utterance to His mental anguish 
in the words, “My soul is sorrowful even unto death”; i.e. my 

1 Compare Matthew xxvi. 30 with xxvi. 36. 

2 xxii. 39. 

8 De loc. hebr. 

4 Kirchenlexikon, 5, 559. 

6 Compare Matthew xvii. 1. 

* Compare Mark xiv. 33. 

T ad Matth. xxvi. 37. 

8 ad loc.: tristari coepit, ut veritatem adsumpti probaret hominis, vereque 
contristatus sit: sed ne passio in animo illius dominaretur , per passionem 
coepit contristari. Aliud est enitn contristari et aliud incipere contristari. 



io8 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


distress is as intense as it can possibly be at the hour of my 
death; it is so great and overpowering that my heart seems ready 
to break. 

The following reasons may be given for our Lord’s anguish: 

(1) He foresaw the cruel treatment awaiting Him, and His painful and 
shameful death upon the cross, and felt the natural shrinking from death: 
Anima naturaliter vult uniri corpori, et illud fuit in anima Christi, quia 
comedit et bibit et esuriit. Ergo separatio erat naturale desiderium; 
ergo separari ei triste (St. Thomas Aquinas). 

(2) He felt the overwhelming burden of the sins of the human race, and 
knew that He had to bear it and expiate all sins. 

(3) He perceived the treachery of Judas, the flight of the apostles, the 
obduracy of the Jewish nation, and the sad destruction of the holy city. 
The earlier commentators lay peculiar stress upon the last point; St. Jerome 
writes: contristabatur autem non timore patiendi, quia ad hoc venerat, ut 
pateretur, sed propter infelicissimum Judam et scandalum omnium et apos- 
tolorum et rejectionem Judaeorum, et eversionem miserae Jerusalem . 1 The 
cry of pain that broke from our Lord’s lips was not a complaint, but ex¬ 
pressed the love that impelled Him to endure such anguish for the salvation 
of men. It reveals to us the value of a human soul for which Jesus bore 
such suffering, and it reminds His representatives on earth that they must 
shrink from no pain of mind or body in laboring for the salvation of souls. 

In order to be alone with His grief and to pour out His heart 
in prayer to God without interruption, Jesus parted from the 
three apostles, but did not go far from them, only about a 
stone’s cast, as St. Luke says, for He wished them to witness 
His struggle and prayer in order that they might testify to the 
world what He had suffered for men. The spot where He left 
the apostles is still pointed out; it is near the entrance to the 
present garden of Gethsemani, and about 75 yards from the 
Grotto of the Agony. 2 

The three stages in Christ’s agony in Gethsemani. The three 
stages and the prayer uttered during each are recorded in detail 
by Matthew and Mark. St. Luke condenses his account, but 
is the only evangelist who mentions two points, viz., the appari¬ 
tion of an angel, and our Lord’s bloody sweat. On the occasion 
of His first prayer Christ revealed the intensity of His suffering 
in His outward action and in the words of His prayer. He fell 
upon His knees, and even cast Himself full length upon the 
ground. According to a pious tradition mentioned by the Ven¬ 
erable Bede, 3 our Saviour’s knees left their impress upon the 

1 Comm, ad loc. St Bede uses almost the same words. 

3 Kirchenlexikon, v. 560. 

3 De locis sanctis, c. 6. 




CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


109 


stone where He knelt, and this stone was afterwards built into 
the inner wall of the church so as to be plainly visible. By thus 
casting Himself down on the earth Jesus expressed His pro¬ 
found abasement, and humble submission to His heavenly 
Father’s will: ruit in faciem, ut humilitatem mentis habitu carnis 
ostendat . 1 His agony revealed itself also in the prayer, “My 
Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me.” Jesus 
prayed thus in accordance with His human will, which was, 
however, completely subordinate to His divine will, for He 
added: “Nevertheless not as I [with my human will] desire, 
but as Thou [with Thy divine will] ordainest, so may it come 
to pass.” 

There is some difficulty in the interpretation of Christ’s words. We must 
notice in the first place that He spoke not of the possibility of God’s taking 
away the chalice of suffering, but of its removal with reference to the divine 
scheme of salvation. This scheme required Christ to complete the work of 
redemption by draining this chalice. He knew God’s design, which had been 
proclaimed by the prophets, and, as we shall see later, the knowledge plunged 
Him into agony; why, then, and in what sense did He say, “ Father, if it be 
possible, let this chalice pass from me? ” The answer is: Jesus had no wish 
to alter God’s ordinance, nor did He hope to be able to modify it by His 
prayer, but His utterance, accompanied as it was by tears, 3 was the natural 
expression of a soul tortured by fear of death; it was an appeal for help 
from above, and for consolation in suffering and desolation; it was, in short, 
most convincing proof of the reality of Christ’s sorrows. Non est haec du¬ 
plex oratio, nec una corrigit alteram . . . sed una plena et deliberata oratio 
cujus prima pars exprimit horrorem passionis et desiderii naturae . . . altera 
pars subjicit rem totam divinae voluntati . s We cannot accept the interpre¬ 
tation that Christ prayed thus because His human knowledge was uncertain 
whether His previous sufferings might not suffice to satisfy divine justice 
and expiate the sins of the whole world. This view is disproved by the fact 
that Christ, both before and after His Passion, declared most definitely that 
His death and resurrection were included in God’s design and must there¬ 
fore inevitably occur. 4 St. Bede thinks that the word “ chalice ” referred 
especially to the sufferings inflicted by the Jews upon our Lord, and sees in 
the petition an expression of sorrow for that unhappy nation: postulat, ut, 
si possibile sit, transeat ab eo calix non timore patiendi sed misericordia pri- 
oris populi, nec ab illis bibat calicem propinatmn. Unde signanter non dixit: 
transeat a me calix, sed: calix iste, h. e. populi Judaeorum, qui excusationem 
ignorantiae habere non potest, si me occiderit, habens prophetas, qui de me 
quotidie vaticinantur. 

When Jesus returned to the three apostles, after this first out¬ 
pouring of His anguish and prayer, He found them asleep, and 
in a few words addressed to Peter, He expressed His surprise 


1 Bede, ad loc. 

8 Jansenius, ad loc. 


2 Hebr. v. 7. 

4 Compare Matthew xvi. 21, Luke xxiv. 25. 



no 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


and grief at their inability to watch with Him even for a short 
time. He then admonished them to watch and pray, that they 
might not enter into temptation. The word “ temptation ” bears 
various meanings in Holy Scripture. It is frequently used to 
designate the trials of this life, which are so called because God 
intends them to be the means of testing and trying our faith 
and religion. But sometimes the same word is applied to the 
sinful movement of concupiscence, that is termed incitamentum 
peccandi. In this passage the first meaning predominates, but 
the second is not excluded. Although in accordance with God’s 
holy will, the first kind of temptation is intended to test and 
prove us, such is our frailty that it may arouse in us sinful de¬ 
sires. Therefore our Saviour teaches us to pray that we may 
not be led into temptation, and bids us watch and pray against 
it. Spiritual vigilance consists in keeping the eyes of the mind 
open so as to detect, and if possible avoid, threatening danger 
in good time, or, if avoidance is impossible, to have recourse to 
the best means of overcoming whatever imperils our salvation. 
If we are to bge spiritually vigilant we must practise spiritual 
sobriety, and not cloud our understanding, nor weaken and im¬ 
pede the action of our will by giving way to ambition, avarice, 
or sensuality. We possess, however, but little strength, and the 
force of temptation is great, so that, in addition to watchfulness, 
we need the support of prayer. Christ’s threefold prayer in 
Gethsemani and the form of His request should teach us to pray 
often, but to submit, in all that we ask, to God’s good pleasure. 

When Jesus prayed the second time He emphasized even more 
strongly the complete subordination of His human will to the 
divine will of His heavenly Father, and said, “My Father, if 
this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be 
done.” 

The apparition of an angel; the bloody sweat. When on going 
back to the disciples for the second time Jesus again found them 
sleeping, He left them and withdrew to endure the last conflict, 
the details of which are recorded by St. Luke alone. Before it 
began an angel appeared, strengthening Him. This apparition 
was real and objective, for the angel could be seen with the eyes 
of the body, as is proved by the use of the Greek verb 
and the remark that he came from heaven. An angel announced 
the birth of the Messiah, an angel brought tidings of that birth 


CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


III 


to the shepherds, and again an angel came to comfort the Mes¬ 
siah when He was about to die. Most commentators think that 
it was Gabriel the archangel, to whom as “ the hero of God ” 
the task of strengthening Jesus would be peculiarly suitable; 
others think it was Michael. 

A more important question is, At what stage in our Lord’s agony did the 
angel appear? Three opinions have been expressed on this subject. Some 
think that the angel came after Christ’s first prayer, others that he came at 
the close of the agony in Gethsemani, 1 2 and others again that it was just be¬ 
fore the third and last struggle, the so-called death agony. Nothing can be 
adduced in support of the second theory except the analogous appearance of 
an angel after Christ had overcome all the three temptations in the desert. 
It finds expression in the hymn of the Office de oratione D.N.J. Chr. in 
Monte Oliveti, which arranges in this order the incidents recorded by St. 
Luke and runs as follows: Cum premat tristis pavor ima cordis, Deficit 
languens Dominus: per artus Sanguinis sudor fluit, atque guttis Terra 
madescit. — At celer summo veniens Olympo, Angelus Jesum recreat jacen- 
tem. Corpori vires redeunt, novoque Robore surgit. Against this we may 
notice that, according to St. Luke, the angel strengthened Jesus before the 
agony began, in order that He might be better able to endure and with¬ 
stand it. Only very serious reasons would justify us in departing from this 
evangelist’s order of events, and certainly a forced grammatical explana¬ 
tion, such as Cornelius a Lapide gives, is not a sufficient reason. St. Augus¬ 
tine plainly follows St. Luke, for he writes: Lucas autem praetermisit 
quoties oraverit: dixit sane, quod isti tacuerunt, et orantem ab angelo con- 
fortatum, et prolixius orantis sudorem fuisse sanguineum et guttas decur - 
rentes in terramf Most recent commentators, so far as they discuss the 
question at all, keep to this order. 

The angel came to strengthen Jesus, both in body and soul, 
in His human nature, and to enable Him, despite His extreme 
exhaustion, to endure triumphantly the last supreme conflict. 
St. Luke does not indicate how Jesus derived strength from the 
angelic messenger; some exegetes, both early and recent, think 
that he reminded our Lord of the beneficial results of His death, 
the glory which it gave to God, the exaltation of Christ’s human 
nature, and the salvation of mankind. Jansenius says: Veri- 
simile est autem, confortationem istarn ab angelo factam sugge- 
rendo ei fructum, qui ex passione ad gloriam patris illustrandam 
et ip si Christo et toti humano generi sequeretur. This opinion 
gains probability when we consider how, in ordinary human life, 
the prospect of success in a difficult undertaking has power to 
restore the strength and courage of a man on the verge of a 


1 Older commentators take this view, e.g., Corn, a Lap. and Tir. 

2 De cons, evang. 3, 12. 



112 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


breakdown. But, we may ask, why was not this encouragement 
supplied by Christ’s own divinity? Why was an angel, one of 
God’s creatures, sent for this purpose? It was not supplied by 
Christ’s divine nature, because, by His extreme self-reniunciation, 
He desired to make known how completely He subjected His 
human will to the will of God. An angel came to comfort Him, 
that God might thus outwardly and visibly display His sym¬ 
pathy with the sufferings of Jesus, and men might perceive the 
magnitude and profound significance of these sufferings, see the 
result of Christ’s prayer, and take to heart the truth that every 
good gift comes from above. Being thus strengthened and 
encouraged Jesus entered upon the last supreme mental struggle 
during which the bloody sweat poured forth, and, as St. Luke 
tells us, He prayed the longer. 

Many various explanations are given of the account of our 
Lord’s bloody sweat. 1 Some suppose His sweat to have been 
so profuse that in size, density, and weight, though not in color 
and nature, the drops resembled drops of blood. 2 But dp 6 nP<n 
=■ “clots” sufficiently expresses drops of blood. In classic 
Greek 0 p6p/?os, both with and without aiparos, may mean a 
drop of blood. Vide Plummer, St. Luke, p. 510. 

St. Luke’s words, their interpretation by the Fathers, 3 and 
the judgment of the Church, all these support the belief that 
our Lord’s sweat consisted of actual blood. As early a 
writer as Irenaeus takes this view, and says 4 that heretics 
who deny that Christ took a real human body from Mary, 
must also deny that He took food, fasted, hungered, wept, 
and sweated drops of blood. The opinion of the Church on 
this point is indicated by the words sanctioned by her in the 
Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary: qui pro nobis sanguinem 
sudavit. 


We have to consider further whether our Lord’s sweat of blood in 
Gethsemani was natural or miraculous. 6 Sylveira writes: communis et 

2 Th!^nfc S ’ pwu 37 ~39, <hscusses the theories propounded up to his time. 

JLheoph., Euthym., Photius, Grotius, Bynaeus, and others. 

Compare Sylveira, viii. 2, 19-21. 

4 Adv. haer. iii. 22, 2. 

5 Some of the fathers regard it as miraculous, e.g., St. Hilary: de 

Irimtate, 1, 10, also Bede, ad loc .. Of modern commentators Knabenbauer, 
ad. loc., says : Et si sudor sanguineus in se non simp liciter sit miraculum 
tamen copia ilia, quae in Christo descrihitur, modum pro se ferre videtur 
satis mtrabilem et communem naturam longe excedentem. 



CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


lx 3 

vera sententia est, quod Christus absque speciali miraculo ex vi summae ac 
internae afflictionis ac agoniae sanguinem sudaverit . 1 There are no patho¬ 
logical or physiological difficulties in the way of accepting this statement, 
although a sweat of blood occurs very rarely. We may account for it in 
the case of Jesus, and believe that intense mental anguish brought about a 
corresponding physical disturbance. “ And being in an agony He prayed 
the longer, and His sweat became as drops of blood.” Luke xxii. 43b-44. 
Here the prayer and the bloody sweat are connected, not exactly the agony 
and the bloody sweat. Not in consequence of His agony did He sweat 
blood, but the prayer and the resistance of His whole soul against the suf¬ 
focating agony made Him sweat blood. “ He resisteth unto the shedding of 
blood ” and drove the blood out of the pores of His body. 

After His agony, Jesus went back to the disciples, bearing on 
His face the traces of what He had just undergone, and said 
to them, “ Sleep ye now and take your rest.” Many commenta¬ 
tors think this utterance ironical , 2 3 but, as I said, it is very doubt¬ 
ful whether our Lord ever spoke ironically, and in any case 
irony would have been out of place at a moment so critical for 
both our Saviour and His disciples, when He was suffering such 
distress of mind. It is more probable that the words were in¬ 
tended as a reproach to the apostles for not having watched 
with their Master. In my opinion the correct interpretation is 
given by St. Augustine, who, referring to the form of words 
recorded by St. Mark, says: non ab exprobante, sed ab permit- 
tente dictum est. s Our Lord, after His sorrow and anguish, 
allowed His disciples, who were exhausted and worn out with 
grief, to take a short rest, while it was still possible. It did not 
last long, for the traitor with his rabble was close at hand, and 
as they approached Jesus said to the disciples, “ Arise, let us go,” 
go, namely, to meet the enemy. He had no thought of escape, 
but went forward to show how ready He was to die . 4 The 
passage contains further confirmation of the truth that Jesus 
was not outwitted by His foes, but without hesitation or reluc¬ 
tance entered upon His Passion, knowing well all that was about 
to take place. 

Two questions arise at this point: (i) How were mental struggles and 
fear of death possible in Jesus, the God-Man? (2) What circumstances 
contributed to cause these intense mental sufferings? The answer to the 
first question is: Jesus took from the Virgin Mary a real and complete 


1 1 . c. vii. 2, 19. 

2 Theoph., Euthym., Maid., Menoch., Tir. 

3 De cons, evang. 3, 11. 

4 Jerome, Comm, ad loc.: Ne nos inveniant quae timentes et retrahentes, 
ultro pergamus ad mortem, ut confidentiam et gaudium passuri vide ant. 



11 4 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

human body, and in assuming human nature assumed also the natural frail¬ 
ties inseparable from it, thus becoming liable like other men to suffering 
in body and mind. These sufferings are termed by the Fathers “natural," 
because they proceed from the natural constitution of humanity and are not 
sinful. Christ assumed the universal, natural defects and feelings of hu¬ 
manity, not those peculiar to individuals, nor such as are sinful and inde¬ 
cent, for He became as like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Our com¬ 
mon bodily and animal frailties are, in fallen man, a consequence of sin, 
for Adam’s fall was the reason why human nature was deprived of that 
preternatural perfection which would have prevented the incidence of natu¬ 
ral defects. Christ, however, though free from all sin, assumed our defects 
as part of the punishment of mankind. Peter Lombard teaches clearly that 
Christ was subject only to the general defects of human nature, and took 
them upon Himself as belonging to the penalty for sin. 1 

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the Son of God, when He assumed 
human nature, assumed also the general defects belonging to it, for three 
reasons: that by His real sufferings He might make satisfaction to His 
heavenly Father for the sins of men; that He might reveal the truth and 
reality of His human nature; and, that He might set us an example how 
to bear our mental and bodily afflictions. Pope Leo the Great wrote to the 
same effect. 2 

Christ being a divine Person, it follows that not only was He free from 
all sinful affections, but even the innocent feelings were in His case com¬ 
pletely under the control of His reason and will, so that they could assert 
themselves only so far as He permitted. He allowed intense agony to 
come upon Him in Gethsemani, in order to humble Himself most pro¬ 
foundly, and to endure, for the salvation of men, the most cruel torments 
of both mind and body. As we have already seen, it was in keeping with 
His purpose of complete self-renunciation and abasement, that the strength¬ 
ening of His human nature proceeded from an angel, a created being, and 
not from His own divinity. 

The reasons for our Lord’s agony in Gethsemani have been indicated 
incidentally; they may be summed up thus: (i) The approaching ill-treat¬ 
ment and cruel death of the Cross; (2) the treachery of Judas, the flight 
of the apostles, and the denial of Peter; (3) the crushing weight of human 
sin, which Christ had to bear and expiate; (4) the rejection of the chosen 
people who refused to believe in and welcome the Messiah; (5) the num¬ 
ber of people in every age who would be lost, because they either directly 
spurned the means of salvation offered to them, or at least failed to make 
use of them; (6) the shame and insults which Christ has to endure in His 
eucharistic body, and the persecutions that He undergoes in His mystical 
body. Regarding the latter He spoke Himself after the resurrection, when 


1 Petrus Lomb. iii. Sent., dist. 15: Assumpsit defectus poeme non culpae. 
Veros quidem habuit defectus, sicut et nos, sed non eadem ex causa. Nos 
enim ex peccato originali tos defectus contrahimus — Christus autem non 
ex peccato hujusmodi defectus habuit, quia sine peccato est conceptus et 
natus et in terris conversatus. 

2 Sermo 16: de pass.: Si non potest, inquit, calix iste transire a me, nisi 
biham ilium, fiat voluntas tua. Haec vox capitis salus est totius corporis; 
haec omnes fideles instruxit ^ omnes confessores accendit, omnes martyres 
coronavit. Nam quis mundi odia, quis tentationum turbines, quis posset 
persecutorum superare terrores, nisi Christus in omnibus et pro omnibus 
patiens Patri diceret: fiat voluntas tua. 



CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


US 

he said to Saul, the persecutor, Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris . 1 The suf¬ 
ferings of the Soul of our Lord are best explained by St. Mark xiv. 33: 
endiinpieicdai — to tremble for fear; aftruxoveiv = satiated, wearied, to feel 
heavy, which is not a higher degree of fear but the Latin taedere. 

II. Christ is Seized 


Matthew xxvi. 47-56 

47. As he yet spoke behold Judas, 
one of the twelve, came and with 
him a great multitude with swords 
and clubs, sent from the chief 
priests and the ancients of the 
people. 

48. And he that betrayed him 
gave them a sign, saying: Whom¬ 
soever I shall kiss, that is he, hold 
him fast. 

49. And forthwith coming to Je¬ 
sus, he said: Hail, Rabbi, and he 
kissed him. 

50. And Jesus said to him: 
Friend whereto art thou come? 
Then they came up and laid hands 
on Jesus and held him. 

51. And behold one of them that 
were with Jesus stretching forth 
his hand, drew out his sword, and 
striking the servant of the high priest, 
cut off his ear. 

52. Then Jesus saith to him: Put 
up again thy sword into its place; 
for all that take the sword shall 
perish with the sword. 

53. Thinkest thou that I cannot 
ask my Father, and he will give me 
presently more than twelve legions 
of Angels? 

54. How then shall the scrip¬ 
tures be fulfilled, that so it must be 
done? 

55. In that same hour Jesus said 
to the multitudes: You are come out 
as it were to a robber with swords 
and clubs to apprehend me. I sat 
daily with you teaching in the temple 
and you laid not hands on me. 

56. Now all this was done that 
the scriptures of the prophets might 
be fulfilled. Then the disciples all 
leaving him fled. 


Mark xiv. 43-52 

43. And while he was yet speak¬ 
ing, cometh Judas Iscariot, one of 
the twelve, and with him a great 
multitude with swords and staves 
from the chief priests, and the scribes 
and the ancients. 

44. And he that betrayed him had 
given them a sign, saying: Whom¬ 
soever I shall kiss, that is he; lay 
hold on him, and lead him away care¬ 
fully. 

45. And when he was come imme¬ 
diately going up to him, he saith: 
Hail, Rabbi, and he kissed him. 

46. But they laid hands on him, 
and held him. 

47. And one of them that stood 
by drawing a sword, struck a serv¬ 
ant of the chief priest and cut off 
his ear. 

48. And Jesus answering, said to 
them: Are you come out as to a 
robber with swords and staves to 
apprehend me? 

49. I was daily with you in the 
temple teaching, and you did not 
lay hands on me. But, that the 
scriptures may be fulfilled. 

50. Then his disciples leaving him, 
all fled away. 

51. And a certain young man fol¬ 
lowed him having a linen cloth cast 
about his naked body; and they laid 
hold on him. 

52. But he, casting off the linen 
cloth, fled from them naked. 


1 Acts ix. 4. 




n6 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Luke xxii. 47-53 

47. As he was yet speaking be¬ 
hold a multitude: and he that was 
called Judas, one of the twelve, went 
before them, and drew near to 
Jesus for to kiss him. 

48. And Jesus said to him: Ju¬ 
das, dost thou betray the son of 
man with a kiss? 

49. And they that were about him 
seeing what would follow, said to 
him: Lord, shall we strike with the 
sword ? 

50. And one of them struck the 
servant of the high priest, and cut 
off his right ear. 

51. But Jesus answering said: 
Suffer ye thus far. And when he 
had touched his ear, he healed him. 

52. And Jesus said to the chief 
priests, and magistrates of the 
temple, and the ancients that were 
come unto him: Are you come out 
as it were against a thief, with 
swords and clubs? 

53. When I was daily with you in 
the temple, you did not stretch forth 
your hands against me; but this is 
your hour and the power of dark¬ 
ness. 


John xviii. 2-11 

2. And Judas also, who betrayed 
him, knew the place; because Jesus 
had often resorted thither together 
with his disciples. 

3. Judas therefore having received 
a band of soldiers and servants from 
the chief priests and the Pharisees, 
cometh thither with lanterns and 
torches and weapons. 

4. Jesus therefore knowing all 
things that should come upon him, 
went forth, and said to them: Whom 
seek ye? 

5. They answered him: Jesus of 
Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I 
am he. And Judas also who be¬ 
trayed him, stood with them. 

6. As soon therefore as he had 
said to them: I am he; they went 
backward and fell to the ground. 

7. Again therefore he asked 
them: Whom seek ye? And they 
said: Jesus of Nazareth. 

8. Jesus answered, I have told 
you, that I am he. If therefore you 
seek me, let these go their way. 

9. That the word might be ful¬ 
filled, which he said: Of them whom 
thou hast given me, I have not lost 
any one. 

10. Then Simon Peter having a 
sword, drew it; and struck the serv¬ 
ant of the high priest, and cut off 
his right ear. And the name of the 
servant was Malchus. 

11. Jesus therefore said to Peter: 
Put up thy sword into the scabbard. 
The chalice which my Father hath 
given me, shall I not drink it? 


The time had now come for Judas to carry out his long and 
carefully prepared act of treachery. We have seen that in all 
probability he left the Cenaculum immediately after the insti¬ 
tution of the Eucharist, so he had two full hours at his disposal 
in which to make the final arrangements for the seizure of 
Jesus. The walk to the Mount of Olives and the Agony took 
place about midnight. There would be no difficulty in finding 
Jesus and taking Him prisoner, for with the exception of the 



CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 117 

night between Sunday and Monday, which He passed at 
Bethany, 1 He had spent each night since His solemn entry into 
Jerusalem in the garden of Gethsemani, 2 on the Mount of Olives. 
The synoptic writers all speak of the leader of the band that 
came to seize Jesus as “ one of the twelve,” thus emphasizing the 
horrible nature of his deed. Judas belonged to the little band 
of trusted disciples chosen by our Lord to carry on His work, 
and now, in direct opposition to his high vocation, he openly 
entered the service of the devil in order to betray Jesus, accord¬ 
ing to the promise that he had made to the Sanhedrin. 3 The 
crowd that came to seize Jesus consisted of a detachment of the 
Temple guards (virtiperai) with their commanders, a detach¬ 
ment of the Roman cohort stationed in the fortress called An¬ 
tonia, with a tribune at their head, and private servants ( SoOXol ) 
of the high priests and Pharisees. That Sanhedrists were also 
present is obvious, and is stated plainly in St. Luke (xxii. 52). 
It was their business to see that the seizure was effected in a 
safe and prudent manner. 


Many commentators have found it difficult to account for the presence of 
Roman soldiers on such an occasion, for the fact that they were led by a 
tribune shows that their coming was officially sanctioned. Whether this 
sanction was given by some inferior military commander or by the procura¬ 
tor himself is uncertain; we incline to the latter opinion. If the soldiers 
were suddenly called out at so late an hour, it seems that there must have 
been some previous arrangement with the Roman governor, and the em¬ 
ployment of Roman soldiery against Jesus was a matter of some importance 
both to the Sanhedrin and to Pilate. Only Roman soldiers could guarantee 
the suppression of a possible uproar, that might prove dangerous to the 
procurator as well as to the Sanhedrin. It has been suggested that the San¬ 
hedrists were anxious to secure the support of the Roman soldiers partly in 
order to dispose Pilate more favorably toward their other plans. The pro¬ 
curator, resident in Caesarea, was accustomed to come to Jerusalem with a 
cohort of soldiers on Jewish festivals to keep order among the multitude 
that assembled at such times; consequently it was easy for the Sanhedrin to 
ask for a detachment. The presence of Roman soldiers is suggested by 
Matthew and Mark, in the words “ a multitude with swords ” (Roman sol¬ 
diers) and staves or clubs (Temple guards) ; John, however, mentions them 
quite plainly. As the Greek word ciriipa denotes either a cohort or a smaller 
number of soldiers, 4 we need not assume that a full cohort of 600 men was 
employed to arrest Jesus. They carried lanterns and torches, which may 
have been really needed as the sky was cloudy, although there was a full 


1 Mark xi. 11. 

* Compare Matthew xxi. 17, and Mark xi. 11, with Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39. 

3 Matthew xxvi. 14 seqq. 

4 Compare John xviii. 3. 



n8 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


moon, 1 or they may have been brought in case of necessity. The fanatical 
Jews desired to have lanterns and torches at hand to ensure the seizure and 
death of Him who was the Light of the World. 3 

First scene in our Lord’s apprehension. On the way to the 
Mount of Olives Judas arranged to point out Jesus with a kiss, 
so that those who had come out to seize Him might be sure of 
His identity, even in the darkness. At the same time Judas 
impressed upon them that they must seize Him and lead Him 
away carefully, so that He might not escape nor be rescued. 
As they drew near to the garden Judas seems to have reminded 
the soldiers of the sign agreed upon. 3 Jesus, knowing what was 
about to happen, had so little intention of taking flight that He 
actually left the garden and advanced to meet Judas, who walked 
somewhat in front of the rest, and approached the Master whom 
he betrayed. The spot where they met is still pointed out. It 
is outside what is now known as the garden of Gethsemani, 
at a distance of sixteen or seventeen yards to the south of the 
place where the three apostles are believed to have slept. 4 Judas 
uttered the usual greeting, “ Hail, Rabbi,” and gave our Lord 
several apparently hearty kisses. Both in word and deed the 
traitor showed himself an accomplished hypocrite, — he used a 
kiss, the token of friendship and affection, as a means of be¬ 
trayal, and he dared still to address his victim as Master and 
Teacher. Many commentators 5 think that Judas chose to betray 
our Lord with a kiss in order to conceal his treachery from 
Jesus and the other apostles; but He who reads the secret of all 
hearts at once perceived Judas’ design and described it in plain 
language. “Judas,” He said (or, according to St. Matthew, 

Friend”), “dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?” 
We see here the gentleness of the merciful Master, and the 
severity of the strict Judge. Each word was intended to lead 
Judas to repent, if possible, even at the last moment; and there 

was a threefold reproach conveyed in this short address,_ 

Judas was betraying the Master with whom he had lived in close 
friendship, he was using a token of friendship and love as a 
means of betrayal, and He whom he betrayed was the Son of 
man, Redeemer of the human race. Jesus allowed the traitor 

1 Baronius, Ann. ad a. 34, n. 67. 2 Sylveira, viii. 3, 2. 

Compare Matthew xxyi. 48. 4 Kirchenlexikon, 5, 560. 

St. Jerome, Jansenius, and others. 



CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


119 

to kiss him because He wished to avoid any appearance of hav¬ 
ing provoked His arrest, because He desired to reveal His great 
love of men, and to teach us by actions as well as by words to 
love our persecutors. 1 Jesus was thus made known to the sol¬ 
diers, but His actual seizure was delayed by an event that 
St. John alone records. The significance of it is indicated by 
the evangelist in the verse that introduces the account. 2 

Second scene, recorded only by St. John, who prefixes the 
remark that Jesus knew all things that should come upon Him 
and went voluntarily to meet His sufferings. 3 Our Lord stepped 
forward in front of His disciples, and went toward the troop of 
men, asking them whom they sought. Judas must have quickly 
rejoined them, for St. John says that he was standing with 
them. “ Judas also, who betrayed Him, stood with them.” 
This short statement is very significant. When the evangelist 
calls Judas a traitor and says that he stood with Christ’s ene¬ 
mies, he means that Judas, who had just .hypocritically kissed 
his Master, was then making common cause with that Master’s 
foes in order to show that he had done his work. Why did 
Jesus ask, “ Whom seek ye?” The following incident supplies 
the answer: the Jews were to be forced to acknowledge pub¬ 
licly that they were seeking the Messiah, and were at the same 
time to learn the divine power of the Master whom Judas had 
just betrayed. They replied, “ Jesus of Nazareth,” and on hear¬ 
ing the words, “ I am he,” they shrank backward and fell to the 
ground. The evangelists record many events in our Lord’s 
life which showed that the manifestation of His divine power 
overcame all human resistance, and the force of His words 
deeply stirred the hearts of men. 4 In Gethsemani such an as¬ 
tounding effect was produced by the utterance of the words, 
“ I am he,” as to prove in a convincing manner that Jesus of 
Nazareth possessed divine power, and was indeed God. St. Leo 
in speaking of this miracle says: quidnam poterit majestas ejus 
judicatura, cujns hoc potuit humilitas judicanda ? 5 

1 Matthew v. 44. 

2 xviii. 4. 

3 Tol. ad loc. remarks: Consulto Joannes haec verba omnibus, quae de 
passione Domini narranda sunt, praemittit, ut nihil praeter ejus voluntatem 
et scientiam ei invenisse omnibus constaret, sed ex voluntate et consilio 
divino omnia esse perpessum. 

4 e.g., at the Purification of the Temple. Compare John vii. 45, 46. 

8 Sermo 1: de pass. 



i2o THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


The question has often been raised whether the whole troop sent out 
against Jesus fell to the ground, or only those men who were to bind Him. 
Some commentators think that only a few men fell, but there is nothing in 
the gospel account to support this theory. Jesus in His humiliation wished 
to display His divine majesty and power, but He would not prevent the 
still deeper humiliation awaiting Him in accordance with God’s decree; 
therefore, after asking a question and receiving an answer, He declared em¬ 
phatically that He was the person whom the multitude sought. He sub¬ 
mitted readily to His arrest, asking only that His disciples might be spared; 
for they were still unable to face the horrors of death, and were, moreover, 
destined to carry on His work on earth after His own departure. Even 
amidst the greatest dangers Christ provided for the physical and spiritual 
safety of His apostles, and in His fatherly care for them He showed His 
zeal for the salvation of mankind. In His intercession for the apostles St. 
John sees the fulfillment of words uttered previously in His prayer at the 
Last Supper. 1 

According to St. John’s account the leaders of the troop twice called our 
Lord “Jesus of Nazareth.” The reason and significance of this appellation 
may be discussed briefly. St. Matthew says 2 that prophets had foretold that 
Jesus should be called a Nazarite (or Nazarene), and this prophecy was ful¬ 
filled when, on their return from Egypt, the holy family settled at Nazareth. 
Jesus spoke of Himself as “of Nazareth” 3 and was thus designated by 
devils 4 * and by men. 6 His followers too were called Nazarenes, 6 and at the 
present day the name is still given to Christians in the East. As, however, 
there is no prophecy extant in which the Messiah is directly called a Naza¬ 
rene, various explanations of the passage in St. Matthew, and of the mean¬ 
ing of the name as applied to Jesus, have been suggested. The following 
seems to be the most probable. In the passage in question St. Matthew was 
thinking primarily of the words of Isaias, in which the prophet speaks of 
the Messiah as a rod ( Nezer ) of Jesse. Similar expressions occur in Jere- 
mias and Zacharias, 7 who call Him a branch of the root. When Jesus took 
up His abode in Nazareth, the prophecy was fulfilled in two senses, the first 
being due to the likeness between the name Nezer , applied by the prophet to 
the Messiah, and that of the town of Nazareth, which was probably called 
simply Nezer by the Jews. The name Nazareth and the word Nezer are 
both derived from the same root nazer. The second sense in which the 
stay at Nazareth was a fulfillment of prophecy is this: When Isaias speaks 
of a rod of the root of Jesse, the word rendered root means literally stump, 
and suggests that the Messiah would be of lowly origin, and His kingdom 
would grow from very small beginnings. 8 This prophecy was fulfilled when 
Jesus prepared for His messianic work in the* quite unimportant town of 
Nazareth, which is not even mentioned in the Old Testament, and at the 
time of our Lord its inhabitants did not enjoy a good reputation among the 
other Jews. 9 This explanation is given by St. Jerome in his commentary on 
Matthew and Isaias and also in his epistle to Pammachius. 


1 John xvii. 12. 2 23. 

3 Acts xxii. 8. 4 Mark i. 24; Luke iv 34 

6 Matthew xxvi; Mark x. 47, xiv. 67, xvi. 6; Luke xxiii. 37, xxvi 

John xvii. 5, 7, xix. 19, and frequently in the Acts of the Apostles. 

6 Acts xxiv. 5. 

7 Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15; Zach. iii. 8. 

8 Compare Knabenb., Comm, in Is. xi. 1. 

9 John i. 46. 


19 ; 




CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


121 


Third scene, Peter’s action. After those sent out to seize 
Jesus had risen from the ground and recovered from their 
fright, they proceeded with their work; the apostles, perceiving 
their purpose, were eager to defend our Lord, and no sooner 
had the leaders laid hands upon Him 1 when St. Peter, the bold, 
zealous, resolute apostle, drew his sword and cut off the right 
ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. Peter probably 
aimed the blow at the man’s head, but only hit his ear, either by 
God’s ordinance or because Malchus tried to evade the blow. 
That he acted with deliberation seems unlikely when we con¬ 
sider both his impetuous disposition and the critical moment 
at which the blow was struck. As the apostles usually went un¬ 
armed, we may assume that on this occasion Peter had purposely 
carried a sword in order to defend his Master against the dan¬ 
gers He had foretold. The Jewish law did not forbid the carry¬ 
ing of arms on the eve of a festival. St. John, who wrote long 
after Peter’s death, alone mentions the man by name; the other 
evangelists refrain from doing so, probably to avoid exciting 
the hostility of the Romans against Peter. Our Saviour was 
quick to condemn the apostle’s action. Three evangelists record 
His rebuke and we may follow Bynaeus 2 in harmonizing their 
accounts. First of all, Jesus impressed upon His disciples that 
they must not offer resistance to the officers, nor try to hinder 
His arrest, then He miraculously healed Malchus, and, lastly, 
gave the reason for His admonition to the disciples and His 
rebuke to Peter. He showed why Peter’s action deserved blame. 
The words “All that take the sword shall perish with the 
sword” are a principle in law, laid down in accordance with 
Gen. ix. 6. They mean that whoever needlessly and without 
authority has recourse to violence will die by the sword. This 
saying is quoted as a Biblical justification of capital punishment 
in the case of great offenders. 3 Peter did wrong because he 
drew the sword without his Master’s bidding, and also because, 
as far as in him lay, he resisted the divine scheme of salvation 
that had already been made known to him. 4 

Commentators both early and recent have regarded our Lord’s 


1 Compare Matthew xxvi. 50 and 51, not, however, Luke and John. 

2 II, 3 , 28. 

8 Sylveira: de jure est sermo, non de eventu. 

4 Ambros. De Offic. 3, c. 4: Noluit se Christus a persecutorum defendere 
vulnere, qui voluit suo vulnere omnes sanare. 



i22 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


words as a prophetic announcement of the punishment to be 
inflicted upon the Jews for killing the Messiah. Others, how¬ 
ever, regard them merely as a proverbial saying meaning that 
every one is punished with the instrument of his offence. 1 

It was unnecessary for Peter or any of the apostles to offer 
resistance, since Jesus, if He wished to be rescued, could call 
the hosts of heaven to His aid. The strength and certainty of 
this help is expressed vividly by the phrase “ twelve legions of 
angels.” Had the rescue of Jesus formed part of the divine 
scheme of salvation, a vast host of heavenly warriors could have 
been summoned to oppose the small number of frail men. 2 

Our Saviour declared solemnly and emphatically, as Matthew 
and John tell us, that it behooved Him to be given up to His 
enemies, in order that the prophecy of His Passion should be 
fulfilled, and that He should drink the chalice of suffering given 
Him by His Father. Our Saviour was no doubt thinking of the 
Prophet Isaias, who foretold the suffering of the Messiah, repre¬ 
senting Him as a lamb that makes no complaints when brought 
to the slaughter. 

Last of all, Christ turned to His enemies. St. Luke tells us 
that He addressed the chief priests and magistrates of the 
Temple, and denounced the violence and cunning of their pro¬ 
ceedings, laying stress upon the fact that His seizure and abduc¬ 
tion were possible only because God permitted them. Not like 
a coward or one guilty of crime did Jesus try to escape from His 
foes; on the contrary, when the time appointed by His Father 
for Him to suffer arrived He passed the days openly in the midst 
of His enemies, and taught the people in the Temple, showing 
that He had no fear of death and nothing to conceal from the 
banhedrin. His allusion to His ow r n mode of action was a 
sufficient condemnation of the methods of the Sanhedrists, who 
sought Him out and effected His arrest under cover of darkness. 
He fell into the hands of the Jews, not through any helplessness 
of His own, but because God permitted it, and He impressed 


1 Wisdom, xi. 17. 

2 Bede sees in our Lord’s words also an allusion to the destruction of 
Jerusalem by Roman legions. After giving the usual explanation, he con¬ 
tinues : aliter autem hie numerus otnne genus hominum significat cum Ro¬ 
mano impeno, hi sunt angeli Dei, qui Dei exercuerunt judicium, quando 
post suam resurrectionem, anno quadragesimo secundo missi a Domino 
sceleratam urbem perdiderunt. 



CHRIST IN GETHSEMANI 


123 

this truth upon the officers when He said “ this is your hour 
and the power of darkness.” The Jews had often sought to 
seize Jesus, but had never succeeded because His hour had not 
yet come, but when it arrived He gave Himself without resist¬ 
ance into their hands. They were the instruments of the devil, 
who made use of them to take their Saviour captive and nail 
Him to the cross. The truth that the Jews, who under the 
guidance of Judas went out to seize Jesus, were in the devil’s 
employ, was stated plainly by our Saviour when He referred 
to the “ power of darkness.” Since Israel voluntarily entered 
the service of the power of darkness it was fully responsible for 
the murder of the Messiah. The officers did not dare to inter¬ 
rupt Jesus while He was speaking, but when He had finished He 
was bound and led away, and all the apostles fled as He had 
foretold. 

The young man who took flight. St. Mark alone records 
another incident connected with our Lord’s arrest. After all the 
apostles had forsaken their Master, He was followed for a time 
by a young man, clad only in one linen garment. When the 
people who were leading Jesus back in bonds to the city tried to 
lay hold of this young man, he cast off his linen cloth and fled 
from them naked. St. Mark related the occurrence in order to 
show how intensely the Jews hated Jesus, and how dangerous 
the situation was for His adherents. 1 Many theories exist as to 
the identity of this young man, and the relation in which he 
stood to Christ. St. Ambrose, 2 St. John Chrysostom, 3 St. 
Gregory the Great, 4 the Venerable Bede, 5 and Baronius 6 all 
think that it was St. John the Evangelist, who in his grief had 
left his outer garment behind in the Supper Room and had gone 
out to the Mount of Olives clad only in the sindon that he had 
worn at supper. St. Bede gives two reasons for identifying the 
young man with St. John: (1) the apostle was very young at 
the time of the Passion; (2) his devotion to his Master was very 
great, and caused him alone to follow Christ, to take flight only 
when His enemies tried to seize him also. 

On the other hand Epiphanius, 7 and to some extent Theophy- 
lact, 8 incline to the belief that the young man was St. James the 


1 Compare Sylveira, viii. 3, 18. 2 In Ps. xxxvi. 8 In Ps. xiii. 

4 L. 14 moral, c. 13. 6 In Marc., c. 14. ® Ann. ad a. 34, n. 67. 

7 Haeres, 78. 8 Ad loc. 



124 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Less, our Lord’s kinsman, who was afterwards Bishop of Jeru¬ 
salem, because, according to Nicephorus, this apostle wore a 
white linen garment all his life. Against these views we must 
acknowledge that St. Mark draws a clear distinction between the 
apostles, who all took flight, and the young man who followed 
our Lord. Moreover there is no ground for accepting the theory 
given above on the subject of St. John’s clothing at supper, and 
St. James could hardly have been described as a young man at 
the time of our Lord’s death. 

Many recent commentators think that the young man was 
St. Mark himself. This view is opposed to the traditional 
theory that John Mark was not one of the band of disciples 
associated with our Lord during His earthly life. It is clear 
that the nameless young man must have been closely connected 
with Him, for the evangelist states explicitly that he followed 
Jesus, not the multitude of those who were leading Him away 
bound. From his dress we may assume that he had been 
aroused from sleep by the uproars. There is nothing in the 
gospel account that enables us to decide whether he had fol¬ 
lowed Jesus from Jerusalem or followed Him only after His 
arrest; of the two the latter theory seems more probably correct. 


SECTION IV 


CHRIST BEFORE THE JEWISH AND GENTILE 
TRIBUNALS 

In their accounts of the events belonging under this head the 
sacred writers differ considerably, both on important and on 
minor points. As their differences will be discussed in dealing 
with the subjects to which they refer, it will suffice here to give 
a short summary of the Biblical passages with which we have 
to deal. 

This section contains the account of: 

1. The trial of Jesus before the ex-high priest Annas, father- 
in-law of Josephus Caiphas, the high priest in office. St. John 
alone records this trial. Many commentators, however, do not 
accept the theory that Annas held a previous examination of 
Jesus when He was brought before Him. 

2. The night session of the Sanhedrin. As no definite result 
was obtained from the witnesses Jesus was condemned to death 
for blasphemy on His own evidence that He was the Son of 
God. This is recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark only. 

3. Peter's denial. Two allusions in St. Mark’s account seem 
to indicate not only the hour when each denial was uttered, but 
also the part of the night during which the Sanhedrin was 
sitting. All the evangelists record the denial. 

4. The morning session of the Sanhedrin. This is mentioned 
by St. Matthew and St. Mark, who distinguish it clearly from 
the night session, although Luke alone gives an exact report of 
the proceedings. No witnesses were called, but Jesus, after 
repeating the assertion that was considered blasphemous, was 
formally condemned to death and handed over to the procurator. 
St. John says nothing of this session. 

5. Suicide of Judas, recorded by St. Matthew alone. 

6. First trial before Pilate. Jesus was accused of stirring 
up and misleading the people; Pilate pronounced Him innocent, 


126 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


and put off the proceedings by sending Jesus to Herod. All the 
evangelists record this trial. 

7. Jesus was mocked and insulted by Herod. Only St. Luke 
gives an account of this incident. 

8. Jesus was handed over to Pilate, and Barabbas released. 
The following points are important: Pilate deliberated not only 
with the Sanhedrists, but also with the populace. He proposed 
to have Jesus chastised and then set Him free; and when this 
offer was rejected, he allowed the people to choose between the 
release of Jesus and that of Barabbas, a thief and murderer. 
At the instigation of the Sanhedrists the people noisily de¬ 
manded the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus; 
Pilate, after washing his hands to show that he had nothing to 
do with the matter, yielded, as St. Matthew tells us, to the 
demand of the Jews; but no formal condemnation was yet 
pronounced. All four evangelists record these things. 

9. Jesus was scourged and mocked. St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
and St. John mention this. 

10. The ecce homo, the formal condemnation of Christ. 
Pilate made a last attempt to save Him by presenting Him to the 
Jews mangled and bleeding, in order, if possible, to arouse their 
pity; then, when Pilate again declared that he considered Jesus 
innocent of the charge brought against Him, the Jews altered 
their tactics, and accused Jesus of blasphemy, demanding His 
death in accordance with the law of Moses, and supporting their 
demand by a covert threat to accuse the procurator of disloyalty 
to the Emperor. Thereupon Pilate gave way and sentenced 
Jesus to be crucified. 


I. Christ Before Annas 

John xviii. 12-14, 19-24 


12. Then the band and the tribune, 
and the servants of the Jews took 
Jesus, and bound him. 

13. And they led him away to 
Annas first, for he was father-in-law 
to Caiphas, who was the high priest 
of that year. 

14. Now Caiphas was he who had 
given the counsel to the Jews that it 
was expedient that one man should 
die for the people. 


19. The high priest therefore 
asked Jesus of his disciples and of 
his doctrine. 

20. Jesus answered him: I have 
spoken openly to the world; I have 
always taught in the synagogue, and 
in the temple whither all the Jews 
resort, and in secret I have spoken 
nothing. 

21. Why askest thou me ? ask them 
who have heard what I have spoken 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 127 


unto them: behold they know what 
things I have said. 

22. And when he had said these 
things one of the servants standing 
by gave Jesus a blow, saying: An- 
swerest thou the high priest so? 


23. Jesus answered him: If I 
have spoken evil, give testimony of 
the evil: but if well, why strikest 
thou me? 

24. And Annas sent him bound to 
Caiphas the high priest. 


To take up the above event in detail we note first St. John’s 
statement that Jesus was dragged away bound from Gethsem- 
ani, and taken first to Annas and then to Caiphas. The synoptic 
writers do not mention His appearance before Annas, but speak 
as though He had been taken direct to Caiphas. It is clear that 
there is no contradiction involved, since the accounts given by 
the evangelists supplement one another. 

Annas, or Hannas, also called by Josephus Ananus, was appointed high 
priest about the year 6 a.d. by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, at the beginning 
of his second term of office in Syria. 1 Some ten years later, in 15 a.d., about 
eighteen years before our Saviour’s death, he was deposed by Valerius 
Gratus, Pontius Pilate’s predecessor. Annas lived to a great age, and had 
the good fortune of seeing all his five sons appointed successively to the 
high priesthood, for which reason Josephus regards him as one of the 
most fortunate of men. 3 

Though deprived of his high office Annas was extremely influential in 
Jerusalem, owing to his close connection with important persons, as well as 
to his wealth, energy, and cunning. 

St. John says that Jesus was taken “to Annas,” not to the 
house of Annas. A comparison of this evangelist’s account with 
those of the synoptic writers seems to show that Annas was at 
that time living in the house of his son-in-law Caiphas. It is 
of course possible that he did not occupy that house perma¬ 
nently, but was there just at that time. This possibility increases 
to very decided probability when we consider the events of that 
night. Annas would, on hearing that Jesus was about to be 
arrested, naturally hasten to the powerful high priest. Hence 
St. John’s account is not opposed to the tradition which distin¬ 
guishes the house of Annas from that of Caiphas. The former 
is said to have stood within the present south wall of the city, 
approximately on the site where an Armenian convent now 
stands. The house of Caiphas was situated southwest of that 
of Annas, and about seventy-five yards north of the Supper 
Room. Thus it was outside the present wall of the city and 


1 Josephus, Ant. xviii. 2, 1. 


* Ant. xx. 9, 1. 




128 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHPIST 


near the Armenian monastery of Mount Sion. It would be 
quite easy to walk in half an hour from Gethsemani to the 
southern part of the Temple hill, and therefore we may assume 
that Jesus was brought before Annas at the beginning of the 
third night watch, which lasted from midnight to three o’clock. 
This is borne out by the indications of time that occur in the 
accounts of Peter’s denial. St. John, in speaking of Annas, 
says, “ he was father-in-law to Caiphas, who was the high priest 
of that year.” Various explanations have been given of these 
words; 1 they certainly are intended to account for the fact that 
Christ was taken first to Annas; it was not because Annas held 
any official position at that time, but because he was related to 
the high priest. Caiphas had given instructions that Jesus 
should be taken to Annas, because the latter as his father-in-law 
enjoyed a high reputation, was an influential, rich, shrewd, and 
energetic man, and also because he had zealously supported 
every movement hostile to Jesus. 

The high priest’s full name was Josephus Caiphas; he became high priest 
about 18 a.d ., 2 * when Valerius Gratus was procurator, and was deprived of 
his office by Vitellius in 36 or 37 a.d. We learn from St. John’s gospel 
(xi. 49, 50) that he was an arrogant and unscrupulous man. The evangel¬ 
ists three times allude to him as the high priest of that year, not meaning 
that there was a different high priest every year, nor that Caiphas held 
office for one year only, nor that under the Roman dominion the high 
priests were frequently changed, 8 nor that Annas and Caiphas had agreed to 
hold the office in alternate years, but the expression denotes that the year 
in question was one of supreme importance in the history of the Jews. For 
the same reason the evangelist refers again here to the remark made by 
Caiphas, in his capacity as high priest, before the assembled Sanhedrists 
when, after the raising of Lazarus, they met to decide what steps they 
should take against Jesus. 

Jesus before Annas. Annas opened the proceedings by asking 
our Lord about His disciples and His doctrine, and showed him¬ 
self to be a shrewd, vigilant man, who had never lost sight of 
Christ’s career, and perceived the critical situation that His 
appearance had caused in the history of Israel. During His 
public ministry, that was now at an end, Jesus had acted like a 
wise teacher, who takes into account the capacity of his pupils, 


1 Bynaeu S , II, 4, 4 , 5 , gives an accurate collection of the explanations sug- 

gested before his time. s 

2 According to Friedlieb it was not until 26 a.d. 

8 Bynaeus, II, 4, 5. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 129 


and had revealed Himself with ever-increasing clearness as the 
Messiah, the Son of God; He had enumerated the benefits offered 
by the Messianic kingdom to those who accept it with faith, 
and He had pointed out the miserable lot of those who in their 
unbelief reject Him, the one, sole Saviour of mankind. More¬ 
over, He had chosen a few of His disciples to be more closely 
associated with Himself, that thus they might be prepared for 
their future work; 1 He had sent them forth, thus initiating them 
personally into the task that lay before them, the dangers and 
significance of which He had explained fully and impressively 
when He instructed them how to proceed. 2 It was therefore 
only natural that Annas, who carefully watched current events, 
should question our Lord regarding His disciples, their number, 
their relation to Himself and their aims, as well as regarding 
His own doctrine. We can easily understand why the question 
about the disciples preceded that about doctrine at a moment 
when he had Jesus in safe custody. Our Lord’s reply frus¬ 
trated the design of the crafty interrogation. He solemnly as¬ 
serted that He had made no secret of His doctrines, but had 
expounded them publicly to vast numbers of people. The his¬ 
tory of His Messianic ministry bore witness to the truth of this 
statement, for Jesus had taught publicly in Galilee, where He 
proclaimed, chiefly in the synagogue, the good tidings of the 
Messianic kingdom; 3 He had spoken openly at Jerusalem, es¬ 
pecially on great festivals, to the amazement of the Jews; He 
had chosen the Temple as the scene of His activity. 4 In the 
answer that He now gave to Annas, our Saviour impressed upon 
him the following truth: “ A detailed answer to your question 
is now not necessary, because it has been already given by the 
public ministry of the Messiah, and it would be useless, because, 
though you ask the question you have no comprehension of, and 
no genuine interest in, my doctrine.” 

Annas was greatly embarrassed by Christ’s firm and decided 
attitude, and his embarrassment was increased by the manner 
in which Jesus rebuked the vulgar and unlawful action of an 
officious servant who struck Him in the face. The words in 
which the man sought to justify his rudeness are important, as 
are those of our Lord’s rebuke. The servant’s remark shows 


1 Mark iii. 14. 

8 Matthew iv. 23. 


2 Matthew x. 5 seqq. 
4 John vii. 14, 15. 



130 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

quite plainly that Christ’s fearless, resolute, and undecided bear¬ 
ing had put Annas in an unpleasant position, from which the 
servant wished to deliver him by active intervention. Christ, 
on the other hand, in the words with which He condemned the 
man’s action, gave a practical interpretation of the general 
principles laid down in the Sermon on the Mount, 1 regarding 
the behavior of Christians toward sinful and unjust persons. 
He wished there to give a plain and definite illustration of the 
principles which ought to inspire a Christian in dealing with his 
oppressors, but He did not intend to lay down rules for outward 
actions. St. Bede asks why Jesus did not act Himself as He 
had taught his followers to act, and he finds an answer in St. 
Augustine: Hie dicit aliquis: cur non fecit, quod ipse praecepitf 
Percutienti enim non sic respondere, sed maxillam debuit al¬ 
teram praeparare. Quid? quod et veraciter et mansuete justeque 
respondit et non solum alteram maxillam iterum percussuro sed 
to turn corpus figendum praeparavit; et hie potius demonstravit 
quod demonstrandum fuit, sua scilicet magna ilia praecepta pa- 
tientiae non ostensione corporis, sed cordis praeparatione 
facienda . 2 3 Moreover, in this case it behooved Jesus to speak, 
because silence might have been misinterpreted as a confession 
of guilt. Annas found a means of escape from his embarrass¬ 
ment by sending Jesus to Caiphas. 


Most commentators assume that Annas did not personally try Jesus, and 
that the account given in John xviii. 19-24, either refers to our Lord’s trial 
by Caiphas before the meeting of the Sanhedrin, or to the proceedings of 
the Sanhedrin itself. The reason for this opinion is that St. John himself 
says that the high priest questioned Jesus, and, apparently, the context 
shows that the high priest meant was Caiphas and not Annas, 8 who was not 
high priest at all at that time. Therefore the concluding remark added to 
the account of the trial, to the effect that Annas had sent Jesus to Caiphas, 
should be regarded as an interpolation which ought to have been inserted 
earlier. On the other hand it should be borne in mind: that (1) in the New 
Testament we frequently read of high priests, as if there were several, and 
consequently we must assume the title to have been given to others besides 
the official high priest; (2) Annas is more than once mentioned as high 
priest with Caiphas, his name being placed first, 4 so that there can be no 
doubt as to his having been recognized as a high priest, and having possessed 
more influence and reputation than Caiphas; (3) the account of the sending 


1 Matthew v. 39-42. 

* Comm, in evang. Joannis. 

3 Compare John xviii. 19 with xviii. 13. 

4 Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 6. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 131 

of Jesus to Caiphas is introduced by the particle “and/’ 1 2 which is retained 
by the best critics. This word shows clearly that the sending was a result 
of the embarrassment caused to Annas by the unexpected turn of events in 
the trial that he had begun. Consequently, it seems best to follow those 
commentators and scholars* who believe that in John xviii. 19-24 we have 
the account of a trial of Jesus before Annas. This was intended to be a 
preliminary to the formal judicial proceedings in the Sanhedrin. 


II. The Night Session of the Sanhedrin 


Matthew xxvi. 57-64 

57. But they holding Jesus led 
him to Caiphas the high priest, 
where the scribes and the ancients 
were assembled. 

58. And Peter followed him afar 
off, even to the court of the high 
priest. And going in, he sat with 
the servants, that he might see the 
end. 

59. And the chief priests and the 
whole council sought false witness 
against Jesus, that they might put 
him to death. 

60. And they found not, whereas 
many false witnesses had come in. 
And last of all there came two false 
witnesses ; 

61. And they said: This man 
saith, I am able to destroy the temple 
of God, and after three days to re¬ 
build it. 

62. And the; high priests rising up, 
saith to him: Answerest thou noth¬ 
ing for the things which these wit¬ 
ness against thee? 

63. But Jesus held his peace. And 
the high priest said to him: I adjure 
thee by the living God that thou tell 
us if thou be the Christ the Son of 
God. 

64. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast 
said it. Nevertheless I say to you 
hereafter you shall see the son of 
man sitting on the right hand of the 
power of God, and coming in the 
clouds of heaven. 


Mark xiv. 53-62 

53. And they brought Jesus to the 
high priests and all the priests and 
the scribes and the ancients as¬ 
sembled together. 

54. And Peter followed him afar 
off even into the court of the high 
priests; and he sat with the servants 
at the fire and warmed himself. 

55. And the chief priests and all 
the council sought for evidence 
against Jesus, that they might put 
him to death, and found none. 

56. For many bore false witness 
against him, and their evidences were 
not agreeing. 

57. And some rising up bore false 
witness against him, saying: 

58. We heard him say, I will de¬ 
stroy this temple made with hands, 
and within three days I will build 
another not made with hands. 

59. And their witness did not 
agree. 

60. And the high priest rising up 
in the midst, asked Jesus, saying: 
Answerest thou nothing to the things 
that are laid to thy charge by all 
these men. 

61. But he held his peace and an¬ 
swered nothing. Again the high 
priest asked him, and said to him: 
Art thou the Christ the Son of the 
blessed God? 

62. And Jesus saith to him: I am. 
And you shall see the son of man 
sitting on the right hand of the 


1 The Vulgate has “ et misit.” 

2 Nonnus, Ammonius, Lyranus, Cajetan, Baronius (ad ann. 34, n. 70) : 
Annas Pontifex jure et officio (because according to Baronius he was prae - 
fectus magno concilio) Christum interrogabat de discipulis ejus atque 
doctrina. 




i3 2 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Matthew xxvi. 65-68 

65. Then the high priest rent his 
garments, saying: He hath blas¬ 
phemed, what further need have we 
of witnesses? Behold now you have 
heard the blasphemy. 

66. What think you? But they 
answering said: He is guilty of 
death. 

67. Then did they spit in his face, 
and buffeted him, and others struck 
his face with the palms of their 
hands. 

68. Saying: Prophesy unto us, O 
Christ; who is he that struck thee? 


Mark xiv. 63 

power of God and coming with the 
clouds of heaven. 

63. Then the high priest rending 
his garments saith: What need we 
any farther witnesses? 

Luke xxii. 54, 63-65 

54. And apprehending him they led 
him to the high priest’s house. But 
Peter followed afar off. 

63. And the men that held him, 
mocked him, and struck him. 

64. And they blindfolded him and 
smote his face. And they asked 
him, saying: Prophesy. Who is it 
that struck thee? 

65. And blaspheming, many other 
things they said against him. 


Only the synoptic gospels contain an account of Christ’s examination be¬ 
fore Caiphas, the high priest, and His condemnation by the Sanhedrin. St. 
John merely says that Jesus was taken from Annas to Caiphas, by whom 
He was handed over to Pilate. Apparently the reason why this evangelist 
passes over the intervening transactions is to be found in the fact that they 
are very fully recorded in the other gospels, in which a clear distinction is 
made between a night session and a morning session of the Sanhedrin. St. 
Matthew and St. Mark tell us in detail what took place at the night session, 
and record the mockery of our Saviour after He had been condemned to 
death; of all the incidents during the night St. Luke records only the last; 
but he gives a fuller account of the morning session, to which the other two 
evangelists only make a short allusion. Other opinions regarding the rela¬ 
tion of the synoptic accounts to one another will be stated and discussed in 
the introduction to the section dealing with the subject 


After the examination of Jesus, which had taken such an 
unexpected turn, Annas, without pronouncing any sentence, sent 
Him to Caiphas, who as the actual high priest alone had au¬ 
thority to give sentence in the Sanhedrin. The gospels contain 
incidental but definite allusions showing that the meeting of the 
council, at which Jesus was condemned, was held in an upper 
room in Caiphas’ palace, the position of which was discussed 
in our preceding section. The proceedings began between one 
and two o’clock in the night and ended between three and four 
in the morning. The reasons for assigning this hour to the 
meeting will be given more fully in the chapter on Peter’s denial. 
There was no difficulty in calling the Sanhedrists together, be- 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 133 

cause 1 some of them were in the crowd that effected our Lord’s 
seizure. All arrangements were made for holding the important 
council meeting as quickly as possible, and for speedily carrying 
out its decisions. 

A short account of the origin, constitution, and power of the Sanhedrin, 
as well as of the methods of procedure in judicial matters, will not be out 
of place here, since it was this assembly that sentenced our divine Saviour 
to death and handed Him over to the Roman procurator, that also violently 
persecuted the apostles and disciples of Christ, 2 and that in all probability 
organized a movement to counteract the effect of St. Paul’s missionary 
labors. 

The Talmudists trace the supreme Jewish Council back to the assembly 
of seventy ancients summoned by Moses at God’s command, 3 but the San¬ 
hedrin, as it existed in the time of Christ, originated during the Syrian 
dominion over Palestine. The first mention of the name Sanhedrin occurs 
in the reigns of Antipater and Herod the Great, 4 but the “ Gerusia ” of the 
Jews, that may probably be identified with the Sanhedrin, is mentioned 
earlier. 5 It consisted, including the high priest, of seventy-one, or, accord¬ 
ing to other authorities, of seventy-two members, 6 and was composed of 
high priests, scribes, and elders of the people. Among the high priests were 
the actual high priest, ex-high priests, and the heads of the twenty-four 
classes of priests or, as some think, the members of those privileged classes 
from which the high priests were selected. Of the other members, men of 
learning formed the class of scribes, and the others that of ancients or 
elders of the people. The presiding officer was either the high priest him¬ 
self, or, if he were unable to attend, his deputy, who, according to rabbinical 
tradition, was called the “ Father of the Court.” 

The regular meeting place of the Council was the Gazith, the hall of 
hewn stone, which may be identified with the j 8ov\r/ or Pov\evrr)piov men¬ 
tioned by Josephus. It stood at the foot of the western slope of the Temple 
hill, near the bridge leading from the Xystus in the upper city to the 
Temple hill. 7 Gazith is according to some Gazzith, i.e., Zayin is with Dag- 
besh, vide Pinsker, Einleitung i. d. babyl.-hebr. Punktationssystem, Ge- 
senius, Handzvorterbuch iiber d. Alte Testament. 

While St. Matthew and St. Mark merely state that our Lord was taken 
to Caiphas, St. Luke says distinctly “to the high priest’s house”; hence it 
is clear that the trial and condemnation of Jesus took place there. 

In accordance with the theocratic constitution of Israel, the Sanhedrin 
was the supreme ecclesiastical and secular court of the Jews, and possessed 
authority to deal with the whole administration of justice, so far as this did 


1 Compare Luke xxii. 52. 

2 Acts iv. 15; v. 21; vi. 12; ix. I, 2; xxii. 30; xxiii. 1. 

8 Num. xi. 16. 

4 Josephus, Ant. xiv. 9, 4. 

6 2 Mach. i. 10; Josephus, Ant. xii. 3, 3. 

6 Baronius, Ann. ad ann. 34, n. 70. 

7 Josephus, B. J., v. 4, 2. The Xystus was a covered colonnade, used for 
gymnastic exercises; its name was derived from the Greek £vetv, to smooth, 
because its floor consisted of smooth stones. It is generally assumed that 
the Gazith formed part of the Temple buildings and was situated inside the 
outer wall of the Temple. 



i34 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

not fall within the scope of lower tribunals, and had not been restricted by 
the Roman governors. We see from the history of St. Paul that the high 
priests’ power was recognized by Jews beyond the borders of the Holy 
Land. The Sanhedrin’s mode of proceeding in criminal cases was arranged 
strictly by the Law of Moses and by traditional usage. The latter forbade 
meetings of the Sanhedrin at night; the proper time being defined as be¬ 
tween morning and evening. * 1 * According to custom, judicial proceedings 
might begin after the morning sacrifice had been offered, i.e., about 7 a.m., 
and had to end with the evening sacrifice at sundown. Moreover, the Tal¬ 
mudists 3 assert that a death sentence could not be pronounced until the 
day after the trial and examination of witnesses. The accused person took 
his place on a platform in the court of justice, opposite to the Sanhedrists, 
with his counsel on his right, and to the right and left of these two persons 
sat a clerk, the duty of the one on the right being to record the defence and 
acquittal, and of the one on the left to note down the charge and sentence. 
Close by stood attendants, ready to guard the prisoner, to call in the wit¬ 
nesses, and, in case the accused was found guilty, to bind him and lead him 
away. The presiding official, pledged by the Mosaic law to strictest impar¬ 
tiality, opened the proceedings by formulating the accusation; then evidence 
was given, first by witnesses for the defence, who were given precedence 
by the rules of the court. The witnesses for the prosecution were heard 
afterwards. On both sides the witnesses were brought forward and exam¬ 
ined singly, and their examination took place only after they had been most 
strictly charged to tell nothing but the truth, under pain of severe punish¬ 
ment. The law of Moses 8 required that the evidence of at least two wit¬ 
nesses must agree, if it were to have any weight. When all the witnesses 
had been heard, the defendant, his counsel, and the prosecutor were listened 
to. The judges then gave their verdict, their votes being counted by clerks. 
The rules of the court required a certain number of Sanhedrists to be pres-' 
ent at every trial, and the majority of their votes determined the verdict. 

The witnesses at the trial of Christ. A comparison of these 
rules of procedure with the actual record of what took place at 
our Lord’s trial will at once reveal the gross injustice practised 
by the Sanhedrin. It was as illegal to try a prisoner between 
one and three in the morning as it was to prronounce sentence 
at the same meeting of the Sanhedrin. All the proceedings 
were manifestly prejudiced, for the court was not concerned 
with ascertaining the truth or falsehood of charges brought 
against Jesus, but was determined upon finding a pretext for 
putting Him to death. There is not a word in the gospels to 
indicate that any counsel appeared in His defence, nor that any 
witnesses for the defence were called, although the Jewish law 
gave them precedence over those for the prosecution. The 
latter, however, played an important part. As the Sanhedrists 

1 Sanhedrin, iv. 1: judicia copitalia transigunt interdiu et finiunt interdiu 

1 Sanhedrin, iv. 1. 

* Deut xix. 15. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 135 

were determined on our Lord’s execution, they actually went 
about looking for people disposed to bear false testimony in 
accordance with the design of the judges, and so to secure His 
condemnation. The evangelists simply state that, although 
many false witnesses came forward, the judges could not obtain 
from them any evidence which served their purpose. 1 

St. Mark’s account 2 seems to suggest that the witnesses were 
not brought in and examined singly, as the rules of the court 
required, but that they were all present at once and followed the 
course of the proceedings. 

Finally two false witnesses came forward who referred to 
our Lord’s words, recorded by St. John, 3 and uttered when, 
after performing His Messianic action of purifying the Temple, 
He justified it against the criticism of the Sanhedrists. The 
evangelist tells us 4 that our Lord spoke of His body as the 
Temple. But the testimony of the two false witnesses did not 
agree. How did they falsify our Lord’s words? It was wrong 
to apply them to the Jewish Temple, although it is possible that 
in this point the witnesses acted in misunderstanding and not 
through malice; they did, however, wilfully distort facts when 
they represented Jesus as saying, “I am able to,” or “I will” 
destroy the Temple, whereas He had spoken of its destruction 
by the Sanhedrists. St. Bede remarks: paucis additis vel muta - 
tis quasi justam calumniam faciunt; commutant et aiunt: ego 
dissolvam hoc templum manufactum et Salvator: vos, inquit, 
solvite non ego. The purpose of this misrepresentation is obvi¬ 
ous : Jesus was to stand convicted of presumption and of sacri¬ 
legious intention against the national sanctuary, and hence 
against God, for the Temple was His house. St. Mark says in 
a general way that the evidence of these two false witnesses did 
not agree, but he does not tell us in what respect they differed. 
From the fact that no allusion was made to their testimony 
when the death sentence was pronounced, we must infer that 
they had contradicted each other on important points, thus 
rendering their evidence worthless. 5 


1 Matthew xxvi. 60 reads non invenerunt, and in some manuscripts of 
the Latin text attempts have been made to supplement this reading; sug¬ 
gested additions are: exitum ( rex ), quicquatn in eo, in eum qmcquam. 

(Tisch. i. 187). . .. 

* Mark xiv. 57. * 9 * . 

4 John ii. 21. 1 Sanhedrin, v. 2. 




136 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

The trial of Jesus. When the witnesses had been examined, 
the high priest called upon Jesus to answer the serious charges 
brought against Him, but He was silent. The reason for 
this silence may be discovered in the hostility of the witnesses 
and the contradictory character of the evidence they had 
given. 

The unsatisfactory results of the examination of witnesses 
for the prosecution had greatly embarrassed Caiphas, and now 
our Lord's majestic silence, which put a stop to all further pro¬ 
ceedings along the usual lines, exasperated him. Only one 
course seemed open to him, viz., to question the accused, and 
to elicit from Him some statement that might be used against 
Him. Consequently Caiphas had recourse to a solemn adjura¬ 
tion, thus imposing upon our Lord the obligation to answer, 
and asked Him directly whether He was the Christ, the Son of 
the blessed God. The words “ Son of God ” must be taken in 
a metaphysical sense, as designating real, actual sonship of God. 
This interpretation is supported both by the juxtaposition of 
these words and the name Christ, the Anointed, i.e. the Mes¬ 
siah promised to, and expected by, the Jews, and also by Caiphas' 
statement that, by answering in the affirmative, Jesus had been 
guilty of blasphemy. St. Matthew, who wrote for converts 
from Judaism, gives our Lord’s affirmative answer in the form 
usual among the Jews in the case of an adjuration, “ Thou hast 
said it.” St. Mark, however, who wrote for Gentile Christians, 
substitutes for the Jewish formula the simple equivalent “ I am.” 
Bede remarks: Marcus posuit: ego sum , ut ostenderet, tantum 
valere, quod ei dicit Jesus: tu dixisti , quantum diceret: ego sum. 
Thus in the presence of the assembled Sanhedrin our Saviour 
proclaimed most solemnly and on oath that He was the Messiah 
promised by God and expected by the Jews, and at the same 
time the true Son of God. 

The testimony of the future. As the Sanhedrists refused to 
believe our Lord’s testimony regarding Himself, He appealed, 
just before sentence was pronounced, triumphantly to the testi¬ 
mony of the future, viz., to His exaltation to the right hand of 
His Father, and to His second coming as judge. “ Nevertheless 
I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting on 
the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds 
of heaven.’ There is in these words an allusion to two passages 


THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 137 

in the Old Testament that refer to the Messiah. 1 “To sit on 
the right hand of the power” is a figurative expression, ex¬ 
plained by St. Paul himself 2 as signifying a taking part in the 
heavenly kingdom and in the divine power that rules the uni¬ 
verse. The coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven refers to 
His visible return as Judge at the end of the world. In His 
great eschatological discourse Christ foretold His second com¬ 
ing, and said: “ They shall see the Son of Man coming in the 
clouds of heaven, with much power and majesty ”; 3 and when 
from the Mount of Olives He ascended in glory from the midst 
of His disciples, “a cloud received Him out of their sight,” 4 
and angels assured them: “This Jesus who is taken up from 
you into heaven, shall so come as you have seen him going into 
heaven.” 5 In the same way our Lord declared at His trial be¬ 
fore the Sanhedrin that He would come again in the clouds of 
heaven. In the Old Testament a cloud is a symbol of the pres¬ 
ence of God’s unapproachable majesty; it is the throne of the 
divine Judge when He comes down to earth. 6 Therefore when 
Christ said that He would come in the clouds of heaven, He 
proclaimed in language perfectly intelligible to the Sanhedrists 
the truth that He will come again as judge, in the divine majesty 
and glory which are His by right. This second advent at the 
end of the world was preceded by His spiritual return at the 
destruction of Jerusalem. When our Saviour told the Sanhe¬ 
drists that they would see all these things, He was alluding 
prophetically to the wonderful events connected with His death, 
to His resurrection and ascension, to the coming of the Holy 
Ghost, the wonderful growth of the Church, and the destruction 
of Jerusalem, — events calculated to convince even the incredu¬ 
lous Jews that the Jesus whom they had crucified was indeed the 
Son of God, and the divine Judge of mankind. St. Bede very 
aptly paraphrases our Lord’s words as follows: Id est, in per- 
petua felicitate regnaturum “probaveritis” eum et venturum cum 
majestate, ut judicet in aequitate, quem modo in infirmitate 
positum injuste judicatis. 7 

Condemnation of Christ. When Jesus had thus borne testi¬ 
mony to Himself and had foretold His future glory, the high 

1 Ps. cix. 1; Dan. vii. 13. 2 Cor. xv. 25. 8 Matthew xxiv. 30. 

4 Acts i. 9. 6 Acts 1- «• 

6 Compare Ps. xvii. 10 seqq.; xcvi. 2; Isa. xix. 1. 7 Comm, ad loc. 



138 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

priest rent his garments, and pronounced our Lord guilty of 
blasphemy. There is no reason for thinking that Caiphas was 
then wearing the official robes of a high priest. The rending 
of garments was among the Jews a token of sorrow, and was 
actually prescribed by the law. The rent began at the neck and 
went downwards for a hand’s breadth, so that part of the breast 
was exposed. According to the Mishna it was permissible to 
rend one’s garments, even on the Sabbath, in token of mourning. 
A rent made at the death of a parent was never sewn up, but 
one made at the death of a relative was mended after the time 
of mourning, either seven or thirty days, had elapsed. In the 
case of Caiphas, the rending of his garments was a token of 
hypocritical and not of real sorrow. The charge of blasphemy 
was made because Jesus had unlawfully, so Caiphas alleged, 
claimed to possess the nature and power of God. According 
to the Mosaic law 1 the punishment for blasphemy was death by 
stoning, and consequently Caiphas and the Sanhedrin at once 
pronounced the death sentence. As we have already seen, their 
action in this respect was thoroughly illegal, since, in cases of 
life and death, the Jewish law permitted an acquittal to be pro¬ 
nounced on the day of the trial, but a death sentence was to be 
given not before the day after the trial. 

Ill treatment of Jesus. No sooner was the sentence pro¬ 
nounced than Jesus, as a condemned blasphemer, excluded from 
the national rights of the Jews, was subjected to every form 
of abuse, ill treatment, and contempt. All three evangelists 
record this fact, but with a difference, for Matthew and Mark 
speak of Christ’s ill treatment at the hands of the Sanhedrists, 
while Luke tells how the attendants in the court insulted Him. 
The indications given by the evangelists show what took place 
immediately after our Lord’s condemnation at the night meet¬ 
ing of the Sanhedrin. He was first insulted and struck by the 
Sanhedrists while still in the council room; afterwards by the 
servants of the court in the room on the ground floor to which 
He was taken after sentence had been given against Him, and 
where He was kept under guard until the morning session, as 
we learn from the account of Peter’s denial. Matthew and 
Mark record the scene in the council room, Luke alone that in 


1 Lev. xxiv. 15. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 139 

the apartment on the lower story. During this night was ful¬ 
filled everything that Isaias had prophesied concerning the Mes¬ 
siah. 1 To express their profound contempt and indignation 2 
Sanhedrists and attendants of the court spat in our Lord’s most 
sacred face; they buffeted Him and struck Him with their fists, 
and, blindfolding Him, they mocked Him, asking Him to 
prophesy and to say who had struck Him—so completely did 
they ignore the solemn prophecy which they had just heard 
regarding the judgment to come. 


III. Peter’s Denial 


Matthew xxvi. 69-75 

69. But Peter sat without in the 
court: and there came to him a 
servant-maid, saying: Thou also 
wast with Jesus the Galilean. 

70. But he denied before them 
all, saying: I know not what thou 
sayest. 

71. And as he went out of the gate, 
another maid saw him, and she said 
to them that were there: This man 
also was with Jesus of Nazareth. 

72. And again he denied with an 
oath: That I know not the man. 

73. And after a little while they 
came that stood by, and said to 
Peter: Surely thou also art one of 
them: for even thy speech doth dis¬ 
cover thee. 

74. Then he began to curse and 
to swear that he knew not the man. 
And immediately the cock crew. 

75. And Peter remembered the 
word of Jesus which he had said: 
Before the cock crow, thou wilt 
deny me thrice. And going forth 
he wept bitterly. 

Luke xxii. 54-55 

54. . . . But Peter followed afar 

off. 

55. And when they had kindled 
a fire in the midst of the hall, and 
were sitting about it, Peter was in 
the midst of them. 


Mark xiv. 66-72 

66. Now when Peter was in the 
court below, there cometh one of 
the maidservants of the high priest. 

67. And when she had seen Peter 
warming himself, looking on Him 
she saith: Thou also wast with Jesus 
of Nazareth. 

68. But he denied, saying: I 
neither know nor understand what 
thou sayest. And he went forth 
before the court and the cock crew 

69. And again a maid servant 
seeing him began to say to the 
standers-by: This is one of them. 

70. But he denied again. And 
after a while they that stood by said 
again to Peter: surely thou art one of 
them; for thou art also a Galilean. 

71. But he began to curse and to 
swear, saying, I know not this man 
of whom you speak. 

72. And immediately the cock 
crew again. And Peter remem¬ 
bered the word that Jesus had said 
unto him: Before the cock crow 
twice thou shalt thrice deny me. 
And he began to weep. 

John xviii. 15 

15. And Simon Peter followed 
Jesus, and so did another disciple. 
And that disciple was known to the 
high priest and went in with Jesus 
into the court of the high priest. 


Isa. 1 . 6. 


Num. xii. 14; xxv. 9. 




140 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Luke xxii. 56-62 

56. Whom when a certain serv¬ 
ant maid had seen sitting at the 
light, and had earnestly beheld him, 
she said: This man also was with 
him. 

57. But he denied him, saying: 
Woman, I know him not. 

58. And after a little while an¬ 
other seeing him, said: Thou art 
also one of them. But Peter said: 
O man, I am not. 

59. And after the space as it 
were of one hour, another certain 
man affirmed, saying: Of a truth 
this man was also with him: for he 
is also a Galilean. 

60. And Peter said: Man, I know 
not what thou sayest. And immedi¬ 
ately as he was yet speaking the 
cock crew. 

61. And the Lord turning looked 
on Peter. And Peter remembered 
the word of the Lord, as he had 
said: Before the cock crow thou 
shalt deny me thrice. 

62. And Peter going out wept 
bitterly. 


John xviii. 16-18, 25-27 

16. But Peter stood at the door 
without. The other disciple there¬ 
fore who was known to the high 
priest, went out, and spoke to the 
portress, and brought in Peter. 

17. The maid therefore that was 
portress, saith to Peter: Art not 
thou also one of this man’s dis¬ 
ciples ? He saith: I am not. 

18. Now the servants and min¬ 
isters stood at a fire of coals, be¬ 
cause it was cold, and warmed 
themselves. And with them was 
Peter, also standing, wanning him¬ 
self. 

25. And Simon Peter was stand¬ 
ing, and warming himself. They 
said therefore to him: Art not thou 
also one of his disciples? He de¬ 
nied it, and said: I am not. 

26. One of the servants of the 
high priest (a kinsman to him 
whose ear Peter cut off) saith to 
him: Did I not see thee in the gar¬ 
den with him? 

27. Again therefore Peter de¬ 
nied : and immediately the cock 
crew. 


The relation between the various accounts of Peter’s denial. 

According to St. John, 1 Peter denied his Master for the first time 
during the proceedings before Annas, and a second and third 
time after Christ had been taken to Caiphas. 2 St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, who omit the examination of Jesus by Annas, record 
the apostle's fall after giving an account of the proceedings of 
the Sanhedrin at the night session. 3 

St. Luke, who does not mention the night session, neverthe¬ 
less agrees with St. Matthew and St. Mark as to the time when 
the denial took place, in so far as he speaks of it as occurring 
before the morning session of the Sanhedrin. 4 St. Matthew and 
St. Mark record Peter’s denial as following the mockery of 


John xviii. 12-24. See Calmet, St. Jean, ad loc ., for a simple transposi¬ 
tion of the text which removes the difficulty. 

2 verses 25, 26. 

3 Compare Matthew xxvi. 69-75 with xxvi. 57-68, and Mark xiv. 66-72 
with xiv. 53-65. 

* Compare Luke xxii. 54-62 with 63 and following verses. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 141 

Jesus, while St. Luke seems to reverse this order. The apparent 
discrepancy vanishes when we remember that the first two 
evangelists describe how the Sanhedrists insulted Christ in the 
council room,, but St. Luke speaks of the behavior of the at¬ 
tendants, after He had been taken to the place of detention. 
We see, therefore, how the account of Peter’s denial is inserted 
in its right position by all four evangelists. An examination 
of their accounts reveals several differences, with regard to 
which Bynaeus 1 remarks: scriptores sacri id negotii crediderunt 
sibi solum dari, rem ipsam ut dicerent, non verba referrent. 
Quod cum alibi, turn in hac narratione observandum ubique est. 
The evangelists all agree on the chief point, viz., that Peter 
thrice denied Christ, and the differences that exist involve no 
contradiction. They are easily explicable from the situation of 
affairs; in fact, when we unite and harmonize the four accounts, 
we obtain a much more vivid picture of the whole scene than 
we could derive from the story given by a single evangelist. 

The house of Caiphas. Its position has already been discussed. We 
must notice that St. John’s account of Peter’s denial certainly justifies the 
assumption that Annas examined Jesus at the house of Caiphas, for al¬ 
though the evangelist speaks of our Lord as being sent from Annas to 
Caiphas, he plainly takes for granted 2 that the place in which Peter was 
both before and after Christ’s removal was one and the same. A broad 
gateway, with the portress’s lodge at one side, led into a spacious quad¬ 
rangle, probably surrounded by a colonnade. The guards of the Temple 
and the servants, who had escorted Jesus hither, remained in this quad¬ 
rangle during the proceedings of the Sanhedrin, so as to be ready in case 
of need. The night was cold, as is usual in Palestine at that time of year, 
and the men lighted a fire to keep themselves warm. The Sanhedrin met 
in a very large hall on the upper story, whence in all probability it was pos¬ 
sible to see what went on in the quadrangle below. It was in this court¬ 
yard that Simon Peter stood, and here he denied his Lord and Master, as 
had been foretold. When Jesus was arrested, all the disciples fled, but 
soon Peter and John, the two favorite apostles, plucked up courage and 
followed from afar. John, being known to the high priest (or perhaps to 
his attendants) entered the quadrangle with the crowd that came to escort 
Jesus to Caiphas’ house. From St. John’s gospel it appears that Peter 
remained for a time outside the palace, and when John noticed this, he 
turned back, and obtained for Peter also permission to enter the court¬ 
yard: he himself seems to have left it again at once, and to have gone 
away. 8 


1 n, 6, 3 . 

2 Compare John xviii. 18 and 25. 

3 6 aXXos nadr)rrjs (compare T'isch. ad loc.) is almost universally believed 
to have been St. John, and none of the arguments against this theory seem 
convincing. 



142 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


The first denial. According to all four evangelists the thing 
that led up to the denial was a remark made by a maidservant, 
of whom St. Mark says that she was in the high priest’s service, 
and St. John that she was portress. St. Mark seems to indicate 
that Peter in his anxiety at first walked about the courtyard 
eagerly awaiting the end of the proceedings in the house. After¬ 
wards he joined the men who stood warming themselves at the 
fire. It was then that the woman approached him, which she 
could easily do, since the fire was not far from the entrance 
gate, and the gate was probably closed during the trial. Peter 
had attracted her attention by wandering about the quadrangle, 
and now, looking closely at him, she recognized him as the man 
whom she had admitted at the request of John. The latter was 
known to her as one of the disciples of Jesus, and this fact, as 
well as Peter’s own behavior, convinced her that he, too, was one 
of them. She expressed her conviction first to Peter alone, 1 and 
then to all the men present. 2 Peter’s answer was not simply 
evasive, it was an emphatic denial that he had ever been in the 
company of Jesus, with whom he said he was not acquainted, 
and that therefore he could not understand what the woman 
meant by her remarks. 3 

The second denial. Here again there are discrepancies in the 
accounts given by the evangelists, but it is not difficult to recon¬ 
cile them. Immediately after his first denial Peter left the place 
where it had occurred and went to the doorway. This probably 
was the passage leading from the outer gate through the house 
into the courtyard; it was not, as some commentators suppose, 
a covered court in front of the house. Here he intended to 
remain, apart from the servants in the quadrangle, mourning 
over his disloyalty and anxiously awaiting the result of his 
Master’s trial. But he encountered another temptation, and fell 
for the second time. As he stood in the doorway the maid, 
who had spoken to him before, again pointed him out to the 
bystanders as a follower of Jesus, 4 and another maid corrobo- 


1 So Matthew, Mark, and John. 2 Luke xxii. 56. 

8 Compare note on Mark xiv. 68. St. Augustine writes (Tract. 113 in 
Joan.) : negavit ergo ipsum Dominum, cum se negavit ejus esse discipulum. 

Somewhat earlier he says: Ecce columna firmissima ad unius aurae impul- 
sum tota contremuit. Ubi est ilia promittentis audacia et de se plurimum 
praefidentisf 

4 Mark xiv. 68, 69. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 143 

rated her statement. 1 Worried in mind and cold in body, Peter 
returned to warm himself at the fire, 2 but here he was again 
pointed out, first by some man, and then by servants of the 
Sanhedrin, 3 as one of our Lord’s disciples. At this moment 
Peter went so far as to swear that he was not a disciple and 
did not know “ the man.” What a contrast between Peter at 
Caesarea Philippi and Peter in the atrium of the high priest’s 
house! There he avowed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son 
of God; 4 here he speaks of Him as a man with whom he is 
wholly unacquainted; there he was enlightened by the spirit of 
God, here he is dominated by human respect. Peter’s example 
shows us what disastrous effects human respect may have upon 
the servant of God, and how earnestly he should pray, both for 
his own sake and in the interests of his sacred office, to be armed 
against fear of men. 

The third denial. St. John’s account shows plainly that the 
third denial was uttered near the fire in the quadrangle, and 
the immediate cause of it was a remark made by a kinsman of 
Malchus, who, in support of the woman’s statement that Peter 
was a follower of Jesus, said that he had been seen with Him in 
the garden. At once others joined in the discussion, and 
brought forward further arguments, pointing out that Peter’s 
manner of speaking showed him to be a Galilean, and therefore 
probably a disciple of Jesus, who also came from Galilee. The 
Galilean dialect was much harsher than that of the other Jews, 
especially of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the Galileans not 
only confused in their speech the guttural sounds, but even failed 
clearly to distinguish b and k. The Talmudists tell us that 
hence comic misunderstandings frequently resulted in the con¬ 
versations between Galileans and the men of Juda. Peter then 
denied Jesus for the third time, adding, as Matthew and Mark 
tell us, curses and oaths, i.e., he called upon God to punish him 
if his sworn declaration that he did not know Jesus, and conse¬ 
quently could not be His disciple, were not true. Meantime the 
night session of the Sanhedrin came to an end, and Jesus was 
brought by the servants down from the council chamber, in the 
upper story, across the courtyard, to a room where He was 
kept under guard until the Sanhedrin met again in the morning. 


1 Matthew xxvi. 71. 
3 John xviii. 25. 


2 Luke xxii. 58. 

4 Matthew xvi. 16. 



i 4 4 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Jesus was therefore just crossing the courtyard when Peter for 
the third time denied Him. He turned and looked at His dis¬ 
loyal disciple, on whom the glance of our Lord made a deep 
impression, and conveyed the grace of the Master to the faith¬ 
less servant to realize the enormity of his offence, and at the 
same time to hope for a merciful pardon. 1 

Thereupon Peter hastily quitted the palace, that he might 
away from the crowd weep bitterly, for St. Augustine, 2 who 
himself, by the aid of divine grace, rose from the depths of sin 
to holiness of life, assures us that solitude is the most suitable 
place for the “ heavy task of weeping.” 

The time of the denials. The information given in the gos¬ 
pels as to the hours of Peter’s denial must now be more closely 
examined. According to St. Mark, the cock crew (for the first 
time) after the first denial, and for the second time immedi¬ 
ately after the third denial. According to St. Luke about an 
hour intervened between the second and the third denial. The 
cock-crowing mentioned by St. Mark was at the beginning and 
end of the period known as the gallicinium, which may prob¬ 
ably be identified with the third watch of the night, in Roman 
reckoning, and lasted from midnight to 3 a.m. Samuel Bo- 
chart, an eminent Protestant theologian, who lived early in the 
seventeenth century, wrote a book called Hierozoicon, dealing 
with the animals mentioned in the Bible. In this work he says 
(II, 1, 17) that the cock crows first at midnight and then just 
before daybreak. 3 Ancient writers as a rule speak of the galli¬ 
cinium as belonging to the period between midnight and dawn, 
but their statement as to its beginning and end are vague, and 
to some extent contradictory. This may be due to the fact that 
the cock does not begin to crow at the same hour in every season 
of the year, or that his crowing lasts longer at one time than 
at another. If we take these things into consideration while 
examining the occurrences of that night, we may arrive at the 
following conclusions with regard to the hour of the three 
denials: The first took place about 1 a.m., the third at 3 a.m., 


1 Augustinus, de cons, evang. 3, 26: Mihi videtur ilia respectio divinitus 
facta, ut ei veniret in mentem, quoties jam negasset, et quid ei Dominus 
praedixisset atque ita misericorditer Domino respiciente poeniteret eum 
atque salubriter fleret. 

2 Confessions, 10, 12. 

3 Compare Bynaeus, II, 1, 23. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 145 

and the second, according to St. Luke, about an hour earlier 
than the third. The words with which St. Matthew and St. 
Mark introduce their accounts of the third denial seem to indi¬ 
cate that a longer interval elapsed between the first and second 
than between the second and third denials. 

The historical accuracy of the account of the cock-crowing has been 
questioned, because according to the Talmudists, 1 it was forbidden to 
keep poultry in Jerusalem and so no cocks would have been tolerated there. 
On the other hand, we must remember that this statement is untrust¬ 
worthy, and is even contradicted by the testimony of Rabbi Jehuda ben 
Baba, who says that a cock was stoned to death in Jerusalem for having 
pecked out a child’s brains. Moreover, in our Lord’s time there were many 
R.omans in Jerusalem who would not have troubled about the Jewish pro¬ 
hibition if it really existed. We have seen in a previous chapter 2 that there 
are other passages in the New Testament which prove poultry keeping to 
have been usual in Palestine then. 

The nature and significance of Peter’s denial. Peter denied 
his Master, first by a simple but definite statement, then by an 
asseveration on oath, and finally by oaths and curses inter¬ 
mingled. He denied having followed Jesus, having been His 
disciple, or even knowing Him. Some of the earlier commen¬ 
tators have tried to put a charitable interpretation upon the 
apostle’s action, and to represent it in a less unfavorable light. 3 
Among more recent exegetes Schegg lays stress upon the fol¬ 
lowing mitigating circumstances: the fatigue and excitement of 
the night, the real danger of death, and the influence of an 
erring conscience. When we attempt to determine the char¬ 
acter of Peter’s denial, we have to remember that the threefold 
question did not touch the subject of Christ being the Messiah, 
the Son of God, but only concerned Peter as His disciple. This 
and this alone was what he emphatically denied; and this is 
what our Lord foretold in the words recorded by St. Luke: 4 
“ I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou 
thrice deniest that thou knowest me.” Therefore Peter’s denial 
was not a falling away from the faith, but rather a failure to 

1 Mishna, Baba Kama 7, 7. 

2 Compare p. 98. 

3 St. Jerome (ad Matth. xxvi. 72) mentions some of these attempts and 
gives his own opinion thus: Scio, quosdam pii affectus erga apostolum Pe~ 
trum hunc locum ita interpretatos, ut dicerent, Petrum non Deum negasse 
sed hominem et esse sensum: nescio hominem, quia scio Deum. Hoc quam 
jrivolum sit, prudens lector intelliget: sic defendunt apostolum ut Deum 
mendacii reum faciant. 

4 xxii. 34. 



146 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

practise his faith; it was an offence against the love and loyalty 
due to God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 

Peter after his fall is often compared with a tree that has 
preserved its trunk and roots after its leaves have been stripped 
off by a hurricane. By divine dispensation beneficial results 
followed even this terrible fall on part of the apostle. 2 


IV. The Morning Session of the Sanhedrin 


Matthew xxvii. i, 2 

1. And when morning was come 
all the chief priests and ancients of 
the people took counsel against 
Jesus that they might put him to 
death. 

2. And they brought him bound 
and delivered him to Pontius Pilate 
the governor. 

Mark xv. i 

1. And straightway in the morn¬ 
ing the chief priests holding a con¬ 
sultation with the ancients and the 
scribes and the whole council, bind¬ 
ing Jesus, led him away, and de¬ 
livered him to Pilate. 


Luke xxii. 66-71; xxiii. 1 

66. And as soon as it was day the 
ancients of the people, and the chief 
priests and scribes came together, 
and they brought him into their 
council saying: If thou be the Christ 
tell us. 

67. And he said to them: If I 
shall tell you, you will not believe 
me: 

68. And if I shall also ask you, 
you will not answer me, nor let me 
go. 

69. But hereafter the son of man 
shall be sitting on the right hand of 
the power of God. 

70. Then said they all: Art thou 
then the Son of God? Who said: 
You say that I am. 

71. And they said: What need we 
any farther testimony? For we our¬ 
selves have heard it from his own 
mouth. 

xxiii. 1. And the whole multi¬ 
tude of them rising up, led him to 
Pilate. 


At the night meeting of the Sanhedrin, recorded by St. Mat¬ 
thew and St. Mark, Jesus was declared by the high priest to 
be worthy of death. Early the next morning (Good Friday) 
the Sanhedrin met again, and this session is mentioned by all 


1 So Tyr. and others. 

a Jansenius ad Matth. xxvi. 75: Permissa sunt haec diinnitus in Petro, 
ut elideretur ejus praesumtio (Basil.), ut disceret infirmis parcere, ubi suam 
novisset infirmitatem (Basil.) ut in ecclesiae principe etiam ab iteratis pecca- 
tis remedium poenitentiae conderetur (Leo), ut nemo auderet de sua virtute 
confidere , quando mutabilitatis periculum nec Petrus potuit evadere. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 147 

three synoptic writers. Jesus was submitted to a new exami¬ 
nation, and when, as during the night session, He solemnly 
declared Himself to be the Son of God, sentence of death was 
formally pronounced. Then followed a discussion regarding 
the manner in which He should be handed over to the Roman 
procurator, and His transference to the Gentile tribunal. 1 

Harmonistic Question. The night and morning sessions of the Sanhe¬ 
drin are generally distinguished, but scholars are not agreed as to what was 
discussed and determined in each. St. Augustine thinks that only the wit¬ 
nesses were examined at night, and that our Lord was not examined and 
pronounced guilty until the morning; that the events which took place at 
night are recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, and that what occurred 
in the morning is contained in St. Luke’s account. 2 3 

Other commentators think that the Sanhedrin met a second time only 
for the purpose of deciding how Jesus should be handed over to the Roman 
tribunal. A third opinion, that has not, however, many supporters, 8 is that 
there was only one meeting of the Sandehrin, viz., on the morning after our 
Lord’s arrest, and that the accounts given by St. Matthew and St. Mark 
refer to it by anticipation. 

With regard to these various attempts at elucidation we may say in gen¬ 
eral terms that even a cursory glance at the reports given by the three 
evangelists of the night and morning assemblies of the Sanhedrin shows all 
such harmonistic attempts to be artificial and to have very little probability 
about them. Against the opinions mentioned above we may say definitely: 

(1) Matthew and Mark draw a clear distinction between the night and 
the morning sessions of the Sanhedrin, and emphasize the fact that the 
latter was a meeting of the whole council. (2) Our Lord’s examination 
in) the morning not only differs in several respects from that held in the 
night, but the manner in which it began seems to indicate that the results 
of the night session, recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, were known 
and taken aS its basis. (3) The ill treatment to which Christ was subjected 
at the close of the night session seems to indicate that He had already been 
pronounced worthy of death, and St. Luke, too, tells us that He was in¬ 
sulted and struck before the morning session. (4) It is impossible to 
maintain that Christ was condemned once only, namely, at the morning 
meeting of the Sanhedrin, because in that case the condemnation could 
not have been pronounced until between 5 and 6 a.m., whereas, as we have 
seen in considering Peter’s denial, our Lord was condemned before the end 
of the Gallicinium, i.e., at the latest between 3 and 4 a.m . 4 

Time, place, and purpose of the morning session. St. Luke 

says that the Sanhedrists assembled as soon as it was day, and 


1 Corn, a Lap., Knabenb., and others. 

2 De cons, evang. 3, 27: node autem intelligimus per falsos testes actum 
esse cum Domino, quod breviter commemoraverunt Matthaeus et Marcus t 
Lucas tacuit, qui enarravit , quae circa mane sunt gesta. 

3 Maid, in Matt. xxvi. 63: credendum est, Matthaeum factum illud per 
anticipationem narravisse. Baron. Ann. ad a. 34, n. 72. 

4 So also Bynaeus, II, 7, 2; ante finitum gallicinium. 




148 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

St. Matthew and St. Mark both speak of the “ morning.” The 
Jews generally held their council meetings after the morning 
sacrifice, but while we might assume that on this occasion, too, 
the Sanhedrin met about 7 a.m., the subsequent course of events, 
however, and the fact that the Sanhedrists were anxious to con¬ 
clude the proceedings as soon as possible, render it highly prob¬ 
able that the meeting began at daybreak and was over by about 
five o’clock. St. Mark’s use of the word “ straightway ” sug¬ 
gests that the meeting was held at a very early hour. All three 
evangelists describe it as important; St. Matthew says that all 
the chief priests and ancients of the people were present; St. 
Luke enumerates all three classes of members of the council, 
and St. Mark speaks of a consultation with the whole council. 
The circumstance that St. Matthew and St. Mark do not refer 
to the morning session as held in a different place from the night 
session is enough to prove that the house of Caiphas was again 
the scene of the proceedings, and St. John 1 states explicitly 
that Jesus was led from Caiphas to Pontius Pilate. A compari¬ 
son of the accounts given by the three evangelists, a considera¬ 
tion of the ordinary procedure at Jewish trials, and especially 
the attitude of the Jews toward the Roman procurator, will 
enable us to discover the purpose of this second meeting. Its 
primary object was to invest the proceedings against Jesus with 
some semblance of legality, since the Jewish law forbade crimi¬ 
nals to be tried at night, and a condemnation to death could not 
legally be pronounced until the day after the trial. As a matter 
of fact, in our Lord’s case His trial and condemnation occurred 
on the same day, because the Jews reckoned the day from even¬ 
ing to evening. In the opinion of the Jews the sentence pro¬ 
nounced against Jesus would be considered more thoroughly 
justified if He were heard twice, and twice persisted in making 
what they considered the blasphemous assertion that He was 
the true Son of God. 2 

Finally, the Sanhedrists wished to take counsel as to the best 
means of gaining access to the Roman procurator, so as to secure 

1 John xviii. 28. 

2 Jansenius: Quia plenum erat concilium ex omnibus judicibus et quia 
alterum nocturnum fuerat, quod jure habebatut illegitimum et ut confiden- 
tius eum condemnarent omnium suffragio, si in eadem confessione persis- 
teret, eamque confirmaret, eum interrogaverunt. This seems to remove the 
psychological difficulties which stand in the way of the adoption of this 
interpretation. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 149 

the crucifixion of Jesus, whom they had already condemned to 
death. 

Proceedings at the morning session of the Sanhedrin. As 
soon as the Sanhedrin had assembled, Jesus was brought in. 
Since the close of the night session He had been under guard 
in a room on the ground floor. No witnesses were called, not¬ 
withstanding the fact that the examination of witnesses formed 
a most essential part in the criminal procedure of the Jews. 
The reason for this omission is obvious: it was impossible to 
call witnesses for the prosecution after their lamentable failure 
at the previous session, and no one intended to call witnesses 
for the defence, because all were resolved upon the death of 
Jesus. Consequently the high priest, speaking as president of 
the Sanhedrin, at once addressed Jesus, saying, “ If thou be the 
Christ — as thou didst assert at our night session—tell us.” 
The Jews pretended they were ready to believe in Jesus if they 
heard from His own lips that He was the Messiah. Regarding 
their hypocrisy St. Bede remarks briefly and to the point: Non 
veritatem desiderabant, sed calumniam praeparabant. This pre¬ 
liminary question, recorded by St. Luke, unmistakably refers to 
our Lord’s testimony at the night session. Now He answered 
simply, “If I shall tell you, you will not believe me.” The 
events of the previous night were evidence enough of the truth 
of this solemn reproach: Jesus had declared most solemnly that 
He was the Son of God, and the Sanhedrin replied to this as¬ 
sertion by charging Him with blasphemy. The attitude of the 
Sanhedrists toward our Lord’s work and teaching had shown 
most plainly that they absolutely refused to accept His testi¬ 
mony to Himself, although it was confirmed by miracles. In 
fact this was admitted frankly at the council meeting held after 
the raising of Lazarus. 1 

Although Jesus left the question unanswered, He brought 
with the dignity peculiar to Him the serious charge against the 
Sanhedrin, the supreme court of justice in Israel, that if He were 
to question its members as to their unprecedented action against 
Him they would not be able to justify it, but nevertheless they 
would not release Him. According to the testimony of history 
Israel was then at the turning point of its destiny; although by 


1 John xi. 47 seqq. 



150 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

word and deed Jesus had proved Himself to be the Messiah of 
the Jews, they condemned Him because they desired His death. 
On account of the murder of the Messiah, future events were 
destined to speak in so loud and emphatic a manner that the 
Jews would be unable either to turn a deaf ear to them or to 
misunderstand their significance. As at the night session, Christ 
impressed the truth upon them in the words of the Psalmist, 
and as the meaning of the quotation had been made quite clear 
to them during their proceedings at night, the Sanhedrists now 
pretended to deduce from it the question, “ Art thou then the 
the Son of God?” And our Lord answered, using the Hebrew 
idiom, “ You say that I am,” which is equivalent to “ I am.” 
He answered thus in spite of the unbelief of those who asked the 
question, because He desired again to testify before the highest 
tribunal of the Jews to the fundamental truth of Christianity 
that Jesus is the Son of God; because, furthermore, He wished 
to reveal to the Jews the importance and bearing of the signs 
of the time to follow. Our merciful Saviour, even at the 
moment of His condemnation, left nothing undone that might 
open the eyes of His murderers and induce their conversion. 
His testimony supplied the Sanhedrists with the excuse for pro¬ 
nouncing with all due formality the death sentence, and Jesus, 
being thus condemned, was sent fettered to the procurator, 
Pontius Pilate. 

Ever since the deposition of Archelaus, in 6 a.d., the province of Judea 
had been governed directly by the Romans, while the other provinces of Pal¬ 
estine still retained their native rulers. The Roman governor was officially 
called the procurator (Greek iirtTpoTros; in the New Testament iiyefiup r= 
praeses). He was answerable to the praetor of the imperial province of 
Syria, although in many respects he was free and independent. He had 
soldiery at his disposal, and carried on the government and the administra¬ 
tion of justice, except in so far as these were left to the Jewish Sanhedrin. 
Death sentences pronounced by the council of the Jews required the pro¬ 
curator’s confirmation to render them legal and enable them to be carried 
out. The Roman procurators did not live at Jerusalem, but at Caesarea, 
formerly called Stratonis Turris, a town on the coast, but they came to 
Jerusalem for the chief Jewish festivals, in order to keep order in the city. 
Pontius Pilate was the fifth Roman procurator of Judea, and held office for 
ten years, from 26 to 37 (36?) a.d. He was notorious for his cruelty, vio¬ 
lence, and unscrupulousness, and St. Luke records an atrocity of which he 
was guilty. 1 Philo says of him that he was unyielding, unscrupulous, obsti¬ 
nate, ready to take bribes, and inclined to acts of violence and arrogance. 2 


1 Luke xiii. 1. 


2 Legat. ad Caj. c. 38. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 151 


At last he was deprived of his office by L. Vitellius, praetor of Syria, and 

tw/T .? ® nsw ! er ‘ he char ges brought against him; he arrived 

there shortly after the death of the Emperor Tiberius (March 16th, 37 a.d.). 
Eusebius says that he committed suicide during Caligula’s reign; it is 
reported that this emperor had banished him to Vienne in Gaul, and this 
would seem to indicate that the investigation had gone against him. The 
apocryphal gospels contain extraordinary stories about Pilate, and especially 
about the time after his death.* 


V. The Traitor’s Death 

Matthew xxvii. 3-10 


3. Then Judas, who betrayed him, 
seeing that he was condemned, re¬ 
penting himself, brought back the 
thirty pieces of silver to the chief 
priests and ancients. 

4. Saying: I have sinned, in be¬ 
traying innocent blood. But they 
said: What is that to us? look thou 
to it. 

5. And casting down the pieces 
of silver in the temple, he departed: 
and went and hanged himself with 
an halter. 

6. But the chief priests having 
taken the pieces of silver, said: It is 
not lawful to put them into the cor- 
bona, because it is the price of 
blood. 


7. And after they had consulted 
together, they bought with them the 
potter’s field, to' be a burying-place 
for strangers. 

8. For this cause that field was 
called haceldama, that is, the field of 
blood, even to this day. 

9. Then was fulfilled that which 
was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, 
saying: And they took the thirty 
pieces of silver, the price of him that 
was prized, whom they prized of the 
children of Israel. 

10. And they gave them unto the 
potter’s field, as the Lord appointed 
to me. 


St. Matthew alone records the tragic death of Judas, the 
traitor, who played the chief part at our Lord’s seizure, and then 
went with the crowd from the Mount of Olives to the house of 
Caiphas, the high priest, where he was able to watch the pro¬ 
ceedings in the Sanhedrin. The evangelist connects closely the 
handing over of Jesus to Pontius Pilate with Judas’ knowledge 
of his Master’s condemnation, and in so doing he does not merely 
record events in their chronological order, but indicates the 
intimate relation existing between the action of the Jews and 
the behavior of Judas. From the fact that Jesus was taken 
bound to the procurator Judas inferred (= 186 )v) that our 
Saviour had been condemned to death by the Jews, and that 
now it only remained for the death sentence to be confirmed and 
executed. This inference was obvious, because Judas was well 


1 H. E. 2 7. 


2 Compare Tisch. Evangelia apocrypha, 210-388. 




152 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


aware of the hostility entertained by the Sanhedrin against 
Jesus. It has frequently been suggested that these introductory 
words would lead us to conclude that Judas had neither desired 
nor expected our Lord’s death; but we shall have occasion to 
refer to this theory again when discussing his repentance. The 
proceedings in the Sanhedrin made the traitor regret what he 
had done, and caused him to approach the Sanhedrists, to offer 
the return of the money paid him for his treachery, and when 
his offer was scornfully rejected, he threw down the coins in 
the Temple. 

Opinions differ regarding the place where Judas approached the San¬ 
hedrists; whether it was in the house of Caiphas, or, later on, in the 
Temple. 1 The latter view seems preferable, and we may assume that while 
some of the Sanhedrists accompanied our Lord to the Praetorium, in order 
to support the charge\ against Him, others went to the Temple, which was 
close by. There they may have had to prepare the morning sacrifice, 2 3 or 
perhaps they wished to remain in the neighborhood of the law court, and 
await the issue of events. 8 

The repentance of Judas. St. Matthew says that Judas “ re¬ 
penting himself” brought back the thirty pieces of silver to 
the chief priests and ancients, saying, “ I have sinned in betray¬ 
ing innocent blood.” He perceived the enormity of his offence, 
acknowledged it publicly, and felt contrition, which he displayed 
by not wishing to retain the reward of his treachery, and actually 
refusing to keep it. Judas did not feign repentance, but really 
felt it, and yet it was not the true repentance that makes for 
salvation; it did not proceed from faith in God, nor was it 
coupled with hope of forgiveness. On the subject of Judas’ 
repentance St. Thomas Aquinas says: non fuit vera poenitentia, 
habuit autem aliquid poenitentiae, quia poenitentia debet esse 
media inter spem et timorem. According to Estius 4 the repent¬ 
ance of Judas was unavailing, because it did not proceed from 
love of God, and was not connected with hope of pardon. We 
should learn from Judas how difficult it is to repent adequately 
after grievous sin. 

Judas’ confession of guilt after our Lord’s condemnation has led many 
commentators to infer that the traitor had neither intended nor expected 

1 St Thomas, Estius, and Jansenius hold, the latter two somewhat doubt¬ 

fully, that it was in the Temple. 

3 Jansenius: . . . sive potius nonnullis in templo obeuntibus ministeria. 

3 St. Thomas: aliqui in templo remanserunt. 

4 Tir. and others. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 153 

such a result to follow from his action. They think that, unless this view 
be adopted, his behavior after Christ was sentenced is psychologically in¬ 
explicable. There are, however, weighty arguments against this theory. 
In the first place Judas well knew the feeling of the Sanhedrin toward 
[esus, and was aware that their hatred of Him far surpassed even their 
aversion for the Roman authorities; moreover, he had many times heard 
his Master foretell that He would be handed over by the Sanhedrin to the 
Gentiles, to die on the cross in Jerusalem, 1 and, lastly, from the words in 
which Jesus announced His approaching betrayal 2 * we may fairly infer that 
[udas had agreed with the Sanhedrin to hand Him over to them for exe¬ 
cution. The difficulty in accounting for Judas’ behavior, after our Lord 
had been condemned and taken to Pilate, will be solved, if we bring the 
axiom — the truth of which is proved by his history — corruptio optimi 
pessima to bear upon two remarks in St. John’s gospel. 8 By his call to be 
an apostle Judas had received special grace, but even in the company of his 
divine Master he gave way to feelings of avarice, and so became less and 
less susceptible to Christ’s influence, and this insusceptibility increased in 
proportion to the grace offered and rejected. Further causes of his down¬ 
fall were the instigations of the devil, who urged him to sin and at the 
same time blinded him to its enormity and probable results. It was not 
until the betrayal had been effected and its consequences were plainly re¬ 
vealed that he realized the full horror of his sin. 4 He perceived its intense 
malice, and, having no hold on religion or morality, he determined to kill 
himself. The psychological arguments against this theory lose weight when 
we remember that there are unhappily many who act as Judas did. In his 
case we must assume that the devil, who had first led him to betray his 
Master, afterwards drove him to despair. 

Behavior of the Sanhedrin toward Judas. The Sanhedrists 
showed no sympathy with their confederate’s distress of mind, 
but answered coldly when he appealed to them, “ What is that 
to us? look thou to it.” It was enough for them that he had 
done his part and contributed toward the attainment of their 
end; then they discarded him as of no further use, and left him 
to his fate. History testifies that a similar experience falls to 
the lot of all who allow themselves to be employed as instru¬ 
ments of sin. 5 6 * The contempt of the Sanhedrists is in keeping 
with their craftiness and malice at the council meeting, and no 
doubt contributed to plunge Judas into despair. 

The suicide of Judas. Despair caused Judas, in the first in¬ 
stance, to throw down in the Temple the money, the price of his 


1 See Matthew xx. 18, 19 ? 

3 Compare Matthew xxvi. 21, 23, with v. 24. 

8 John xiii. 2 and 27. 

4 Commentators (e.g., Knabenb.) refer to a remark made by Tacitus 

(Ann. 14, 10) in his account of the murder of Nero’s mother: perfecto 
demum scelere magnitude* ejus intellecta est. 

6 Tirinus: En praemium eorum, qui in aliorum gratiam peccant: riden- 

tur, contemnuntur, deseruntur. 



154 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

treachery. According to one reading of the Greek text it seems 
as though he even penetrated to the Holy of Holies, where only 
priests might go, and flung down the coins there; another read¬ 
ing suggests that he stood in the forecourt of the priests, and 
cast the money thence into the sanctuary. Thus he got rid of the 
silver, but not of the burden of guilt that drove him to his death. 
His dreadful act is recorded by the evangelists in a few brief 
words: “ He went and hanged himself.” This statement can 
easily be reconciled with that in the Acts (viii. 18) : “He . . . 
being hanged, burst asunder in the midst.” He seems to have 
hanged himself with a halter to a tree, and either the rope, or 
the branch to which it was fastened, broke, so that his body fell 
down and burst open. 

The use made of the traitor’s reward. The Sanhedrists 
thought it wrong to put blood-money into the treasury, basing 
their opinion, as is generally assumed, upon a passage in Deuter¬ 
onomy, which forbids ill-gotten gains to be offered in the house 
of God. 1 Consequently they spent it in buying from a potter 
a field intending it to be a burial place for Jews who came 
from abroad and died at Jerusalem. The name Haceldama, 
field of blood, served to remind subsequent generations of the 
crime committed by the Sanhedrin against the Messiah. The 
field lay to the south of Jerusalem in the valley of Hinnom, and 
white potter’s clay is still obtained in the neighborhood. At the 
present time there stands in the field a building about 30 feet 
long, 19 or 20 feet wide, and 32 feet high, which formerly was 
the entrance to the rock tombs. St. Matthew points out that the 
purchase of the potter’s field as a burial place with the reward 
of Judas’ treachery fulfilled a prophecy of Jeremias: “And they 
took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, 


1 From St. Peter’s words in Acts i. 18: hie possedit agrum de merccde 
iniquitatis, we must not conclude that Judas had actually bought the piece 
of land; it is merely by poetical phrase that Peter ascribes to Judas himself 
the purchase made with the money of Judas. The parallel passage in St. 
Matthew’s gospel requires this interpretation, as well as St. Peter’s own 
statement; for the time which elapsed between the reception of the money 
by Judas and his death was too short for any purchase of land to have 
taken place. The Jewish law provided that the money be restored to the 
donor, and if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it 
for something for the public weal. This explains the apparent discrepancy 
between Matthew’s account and that of Acts i. 18. By a fiction of law the 
money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him to 
the purchase of the potter’s field. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 155 

whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave 
them unto the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed to me.” 

“ Him that was prized ” is an allusion to Christ, whom the high 
priests, acting as representatives of the chosen people, valued 
at 30 silver shekels, since they promised and actually paid this 
sum for the delivery of the Messiah into their hands. Great 
difficulties have arisen from the fact that the words quoted by 
St. Matthew do not occur in Jeremias, although there is in 
Zacharias a passage that is generally regarded as the original 
of the quotation, if rendered freely and not literally. Many 
attempts have been made to solve the problem, and Bynaeus 1 
refers to and discusses fully all such attempts made before his 
time. All elucidations should be rejected which are based upon 
the assumption that the authenticity of the words per Jeremiam 
is doubtful, and that the original reading was per prophetam 
or per Zachariam prophetam. As early a writer as St. Augus¬ 
tine 2 laid down the correct principles of criticism which should 
lead us to reject such an assumption. There is such strong docu¬ 
mentary evidence in support of the reading per Jeremiam 
prophetam that the other readings can hardly be taken seriously 
into consideration; moreover, it is quite easy to see why Jere¬ 
miam should have been altered to Zachariam, but impossible 
to account for a change from Zachariam to Jeremiam, or for the 
insertion of the name Jeremiam, if the original reading was 
simply per prophetam . 

The passage in Zacharias that agrees most closely with the quotation 
given by St. Matthew is: “And I said to them, If it be good in your eyes, 
bring hither my wages; and if not, be quiet. And they weighed for my 
wages thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me: Cast it to the stat¬ 
uary (A. V. potter), a handsome price, that I was prized at by them. And 
I took the thirty pieces of silver, and I cast them into the house of the 
Lord, to the statuary” (Zach. xi. 12, 13). These words are addressed by 
God to the Messiah, the Shepherd of Israel. The idea that the discontent 
and disobedience of His flock would cause Him to relinquish His office, 
and leave the unruly and ungrateful flock to its fate, is expressed by the 
demand on part of the Shepherd for payment, and by the breaking of his 
pastoral staff. The wages, thirty pieces of silver, were, as has already been 
said, the legal penalty for the killing of a slave, and are therefore called 
ironically a “ handsome price.” By God’s command the Shepherd took this 
money into the house of the Lord, and cast it to the statuary, or potter. 
The concluding words of the prophecy are obscure, and were incomprehen¬ 
sible until fulfilled in the circumstances attending the death of Christ, the 


1 II. 8, 22-32. 


De cons, evang. 3, 28-31. 



156 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Good Shepherd, in the fullest meaning of the expression. 1 The variant read¬ 
ings of Zach. xi. 13 seem to have been known to the author of the Gospel. 
St. Augustine attempts to explain the difficulty in the following way: The 
reference to Jeremias instead of Zacharias was due to a forgetfulness on part 
of St. Matthew, and the Holy Ghost permitted the mistake because all the 
prophets proclaimed the word of God. Another special reason for the men¬ 
tion of Jeremias was that this prophet actually speaks of the purchase of a 
field. 2 St. Augustine is followed by St. Bede, and the glossa ordinaria on 
the passage are to the same effect. St. Jerome discusses the question both 
in his commentary on St. Matthew and in his breviarium in Psalm 77. In 
both places he says that he could not find the quotation in Jeremias, but 
discovered it in Zacharias; in the breviarium he goes on to say that the 
reference to Jeremias is a mistake ( error ), but in the commentary he 
writes: legi nuper in quodam hebraico volumine, quod Nazarenae sectae 
mihi Hebraeus obtulit, Jeremiae apocryphum in quo haec ad verbum scripta 
reperi. A similar statement is made by Origen, who writes: inter ea, quae 
scripta sunt, non invenitur hoc Jeremias alicubi prophetasse in libris suis, 
qui vel in ecclesiis leguntur, vel apud Hebraeos referuntur; si quis autem 
potest scire , ostendat, ubi sit scriptum. Suspicor aut errorem esse scrip- 
turae et pro Zacharia positum Jeremiam, aut esse aliquam secretam Jere¬ 
miae scripturam, in qua scribitur. John Lightfoot, an Anglican theologian 
and noted Orientalist (1602-1675), makes another attempt to account for the 
apparent mistake. 8 He suggests that Jeremias may have been mentioned, 
because his book occupies the first place in the older collections of the 
prophetical books, so that he seems to stand for all the prophets collectively. 
More recent commentators are as a rule inclined to think that St. Matthew 
made a mistake, or that by some accident the name of Jeremias was at a 
very early period substituted for that of Zacharias. 4 Our own opinion is 
that the quotation is either from a lost work of Jeremias, or from a lost 
portion of the extant book of that prophet. It is quite possible that a book 
by Jeremias may be lost, for many writers think also that two, or even 
three, of St. Paul’s epistles have not come down to us. The assumption 
that the passage quoted by St. Matthew really did occur in a work by 
Jeremias is borne out by the fact that passages very suggestive of it actu¬ 
ally do occur in his extant book. 8 In the text quoted the evangelist lays 
stress upon prophetic utterances in the Old Testament, according to which 
the Messiah, the Shepherd of Israel, was to be sold for thirty pieces of 
silver, and that the sum was expended upon the purchase of a potter’s field. 


VI. The First Trial Before Pilate 6 * 


Matthew xxvii. 11 

11. And Jesus stood before the 
governor, and the governor asked 


Mark xv. 2 

2. And Pilate asked him: Art 
thou the king of the Jews? But 


2 Jer. xxxii. 7-9. 

4 So Laurent, 224. 


1 John x. 1. 

3 Horae hebraicae in Matth. xxvii. 9. 

8 Jer. xvii. 1 seqq.; xix. 1 seqq. 

• Order of the gospel narrative: (i) John xviii. 38-32; (2) Luke xxiii. 2; 
(3) John xvin. 33 - 36 ; (4) John xvm. 37-38; Matthew xxvii. n ; Mark xv 2* 
Luke xxm. 3, 4; (5) Luke xxiii. 5; (6) Matthew xxvii. 12-14; Mark xv 
3 - 5 ; (7) Luke xxiii. 6, 7 (compare Bynaeus, III, 1, 2-35). 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 157 


Matthew xxvii. 12-14 
him, saying: Art thou the king of 
the Jews? Jesus saith to him: 

Thou sayest it. 

12. And when he was accused by 
the chief priests and ancients, he an¬ 
swered nothing. 

13. Then Pilate saith to him: 
Dost not thou hear how great testi¬ 
monies they allege against thee? 

14. And he answered him to never 
a word: so that the governor won¬ 
dered exceedingly. 

Luke xxiii. 2-7 

2. And they began to accuse him, 
saying: We have found this man 
perverting our nation, and forbid¬ 
ding to give tribute to Cesar, and 
saying that he is Christ the king. 

3. And Pilate asked him, saying: 
Art thou the king of the Jews? But 
he answering said, Thou sayest it. 

4. And Pilate said to the chief 
priests and to the multitudes: I find 
no cause in this man. 

5. But they were more earnest, 
saying: He stirreth up the people, 
teaching throughout all Judea, be¬ 
ginning from Galilee to this place. 

6. But Pilate hearing Galilee, 
asked if the man were of Galilee. 

7. And when he understood that 
he was of Herod’s jurisdiction, he 
sent him away to Herod, who was 
also himself at Jerusalem in those 
days. 


Mark xv. 3-5 

he answering saith to him: Thou say¬ 
est it. 

3. And the chief priests accused 
him in many things. 

4. And Pilate again asked him, 
saying: Answerest thou nothing? 
behold in how many things they 
accuse thee. 

5. But Jesus still answered noth¬ 
ing: so that Pilate wondered. 


John xviii. 28-36 

28. Then they led Jesus from 
Caiphas to the governor’s hall. And 
it was morning: and they went not 
into the hall, that they might not be 
defiled, but that they might eat the 
pasch. 

29. Pilate therefore went out to 
them and said: What accusation 
bring you against this man? 

30. They answered and said to 
him: If he were not a malefactor, 
we would not have delivered him up 
to thee. 

31. Pilate therefore said to them: 
Take him you, and judge him, ac¬ 
cording to your law. The Jews 
therefore said to him: It is not law¬ 
ful for us to put any man to death. 

32. That the word of Jesus might 
be fulfilled which he said, signifying 
what death he should die. 

33. Pilate therefore went into the 
hall again and called Jesus, and said 
to him: Art thou the king of the 
Jews? 

34. Jesus answered: Sayest thou 
this thing of thyself or have others 
told it thee of me? 

35. Pilate answered: Am I a 
Jew? Thy own nation and the chief 
priests have delivered thee up to 
me: what hast thou done ? 

36. Jesus answered: My kingdom 
is not of this world. If my kingdom 
were of this world, my servants 
would certainly strive that I should 
not be delivered to the Jews: but 
now my kingdom is not from hence. 




158 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


John xviii. 37-38 

37. Pilate therefore said to him: 
Art thou a king then? Jesus an¬ 
swered: Thou sayest, that I am a 
king. For this was I born, and for 
this came I into the world, that I 
should give testimony to the truth. 
Every one that is of the truth, hear- 
eth my voice. 

38. Pilate saith to him: What is 
truth? And when he said this he 
went out again to the Jews, and 
saith to them: I find no cause in 
him. 

After His condemnation by the Sanhedrin our Lord was taken 
bound from the house of Caiphas to the Praetorium, and 
brought before the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. 

St. John says that this occurred in the morning, and we may assume that 
Christ was brought before the Gentile tribunal about 6 a.m. It was the 
custom among the Romans to begin judicial proceedings very early, and as 
Pilate was no doubt well informed regarding all that had taken place during 
the night, he would certainly consider the prevalent feeling in the city, and 
begin the trial without delay. 

The situation of the Praetorium. The Praetorium, whither Jesus was 
taken, escorted by Sanhedrists, was in Jerusalem the official residence occu¬ 
pied by the procurator on his visits from Caesarea to the capital. The pal¬ 
aces of former rulers were, as a rule, used as the official residences of the 
Roman governors in the provinces. Allusions in Josephus 1 and Philo 2 
have led modern commentators to think that the Roman procurator on this, 
as on other visits to Jerusalem, stayed in Herod’s palace in the northwest¬ 
ern part of the upper city. Josephus gives a description of its splendor, 
its towers, its magnificent banqueting halls and other splendidly appointed 
rooms, as well as of its beautiful gardens. 8 There seems, however, no suffi¬ 
cient reason for doubting the tradition, dating back to the fourth century, 
according to which the fortress known as Antonia was identified with the 
Praetorium, and was actually so called. 

The fortress called Antonia dominated the whole of the Temple, and 
was situated at the northwest corner of the Temple hill, separated from 
the Temple itself by the Temple court. Herod the Great had rebuilt the 
old fortress of the Asmonean kings, which was called Baris, and had trans¬ 
formed it into a spacious and magnificent fortress, to which he gave the 
name Antonia, in honor of his benefactor Antonius. * 4 At the present time 
some barracks have been built on the site. Two flights of steps led from 
the court of the Temple to a raised portico of the fortress, and it was 
from here that sentence was pronounced, the actual court of justice ad¬ 
joining this portico. 


i B. J. ii. 14, 8. 

3 Ant. xv. 9, 3; B. J. v. 4, 4. 


2 Legatio ad Caj. 38. 

4 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, 3; B. J. v. 5, 8. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 159 

The charge brought against Jesus. Jesus was taken to the 
Praetorium either by the servants of the Sanhedrin or, more 
probably, by Roman soldiers, 1 while the Sanhedrists remained 
outside, that they might through association with Gentiles not 
be rendered technically unclean, as this would debar them from 
eating the Pasch. According to the Pharisees’ interpretation 
of the law, intercourse with Gentiles defiled a Jew, and con¬ 
sequently strict Jews avoided going to Gentile countries, or at 
least on their return were careful to shake off the dust of such 
places from their feet. 

St. John says that the Jews entered not into the hall, that they might 
not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch. This statement has led 
many to infer that the Jews did not eat the Paschal lamb until the evening 
of the day on which our Lord was crucified, and that therefore either 
Christ kept the feast a day earlier, or the Jews had put off the celebration 
of the festival to the day after the date appointed by the law. In so far 
as this theory is based upon the expression “ to eat the Pasch,” it is not 
convincing. The word “ Pasch ” was used to designate not only the Paschal 
lamb, but also the peace offering, the Chagigah, that had to be killed and 
eaten during the festival. The Jews’ reason for not entering the Prae¬ 
torium seems to be connected with eating the peace offering, rather than 
with the Paschal supper, in the strict sense of the word. The uncleanness 
caused by contact with Gentiles belonged to the class of defilements that 
lasted only until nightfall, and could be removed at sunset by washing. 
Thus, even though they had entered Pilate’s house, the Sanhedrists, pro¬ 
vided they washed at sunset, would not have been prevented by the law 
from taking part in the Paschal supper, for it did not begin until nightfall. 
St. John’s statement seems rather to refer to some meal that would be eaten 
in the daytime, while the defilement still lasted, and this was, no doubt, 
the eating of the peace offering. Bynaeus discusses the subject thoroughly, 2 
and gives it as his opinion that St. John the Evangelist had in mind non 
agnum, sed paschale sacrificium (i.e., Chagigam ) quod “ de die ” comede- 
batur, atque ab immundo comedi erat grande nefas. 

The accounts given by the evangelists of Christ’s first trial 
by Pilate may be described in general terms thus: St. John 
describes the course of the proceedings most fully; St. Luke 
records with precision the charges brought against our Lord, 
and the more and more decided attitude adopted by the Sanhe¬ 
drists toward the procurator; St. Matthew and St. Mark dwell 
chiefly on the closing scene of the first trial. Pilate was a proud 


1 Bynaeus, III, I, 2. 

2 Bynaeus, III, i, 2-4. On the other hand Knabenb. remarks ad loc. that 

even if the word can be used in the wider sense, it cannot be shown 

and is most improbable that the phrase Traced ^ayeiv ever bears the wider 
signification. 



160 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


man and likely to be offended by the Sanhedrists’ avoidance of 
his house, but he was a high official of the Romans, who from 
motives of policy respected the religious scruples of , subject 
nations, 1 and so he subordinated his own personal feelings to 
political considerations and came out to speak to the Jews. 
Roman judicial proceedings were carried on verbally and in 
public, and he acted in conformity with the usual custom when 
he asked what charge the Jews brought against Jesus. In an 
angry tone they replied, “ If he were not a malefactor, we would 
not have delivered him up to thee.” The Sanhedrists were 
probably annoyed because they regarded Pilate’s question as 
an insult, and feared that he might challenge their authority. 
They clung to the theory that Pilate had nothing to do with the 
case beyond confirming and carrying out the sentence. 2 Pilate 
answered briefly, in a commanding tone, “ Take him and judge 
him according to your law.” The procurator was carefully 
guarding his rights, and his refusal to deal with the case, while 
it has been variously interpreted, 3 was probably the result 
of the Jews’ refusal to give him information regarding the ac¬ 
cusation against Jesus. 4 Pilate showed thus his good will 
toward our Lord and his indignation at the action of the Jews, 
Langen thinks that Pilate concluded from their behavior that 
the matter was one with which the Jewish courts were compe¬ 
tent to deal. It is, however, very improbable that the procurator 
was still unaware of the Sanhedrin’s decision, and therefore the 
first hypothesis seems the more probable, especially as it gains 
force from the subsequent action of the Sanhedrists. 

Pilate’s energetic behavior made an impression up the stub¬ 
born members of the Sanhedrin, who now gave him an answer, 
and said, “ It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” 
These words present considerable difficulty, as they are closely 
connected with the question of the powers of the Sanhedrin at 
the time of Christ. The expression “ any man ” sounds quite 
general and seems to admit of no limitation, and the Sanhedrists’ 
remark, taken literally, apparently implies that at that time the 


1 Bynaeus, III, I, 5. 

2 Leo, Sermo 3 in pass.: ipsum esse executorem sententiae, non autem 
arbitrnm causae volunt. 

3 Bynaeus, III, 1, 9-14, states the various interpretations. 

4 Tol.: particula ergo causam indicat, cur Pilatus hoc respondent nempe 
quia illi crimen et accusationem proferre et manifestare nolebant. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 161 


Sanhedrin could pronounce a death sentence, but had no author¬ 
ity to carry out such a sentence. A death sentence pronounced 
in a Jewish court required confirmation by a Roman procurator 
before it became valid and capable of execution. Moreover, the 
execution was usually performed by officials of the Roman gov¬ 
ernment. In deciding whether a death sentence pronounced by 
a Jewish court was to be confirmed or not, the procurator, how¬ 
ever, had to be guided by the rules of Jewish, not of Roman law. 
The restriction of the power of the Sanhedrin dated probably 
from the incorporation of Judea into the Roman Empire, in the 
year 6 a.d., 1 though others think that it was of later origin, 
not earlier than forty years before the destruction of the 
Temple. 2 3 * * * * What the Sanhedrists intended to convey to Pilate 
was: “ We have found Jesus guilty of an offence involving the 
death penalty, and have condemned him to die; it only remains 
for you to confirm and carry out our sentence.” 

Many commentators maintain that under the Roman dominion the San¬ 
hedrin still had the right to execute death sentences, and that therefore 
some limitation or secondary intention must be assigned to the declaration 
made by the Sanhedrists to Pilate. These exegetes suppose the Jews to 
have meant that it was unlawful for them to put any one to death during 
the festival. 8 

Others suggest that the Sanhedrists wished Jesus to be regarded as a 
political offender, and in penalty for high treason, be crucified, for cruci¬ 
fixion was a Roman, not a Jewish form of punishment. Luke xx. 20 shows 
that to deliver Jesus to the authority and power of the governor was always 


1 So Scaliger and others. Felten (I, 297-299) is of opinion that we can¬ 
not regard as historically correct the statement of the Talmudists to the 
effect that forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Jews were 
deprived of the right to give judgment in matters of life and death. Jo¬ 
sephus Flavius writes {Wars, II, 8, 1) that, Archelaus being deposed, Kopo- 
nius was sent to Judea, now a Roman province, who had received from the 
emperor ’e|ouow fiexP L r5u Kreiveiv. Again Josephus {Ant. xx. 9, 1), speak¬ 
ing of the condemnation and martyrdom of James, the brother of Christ, by 
the high priest Ananus in the absence of any procurator, relates how some 
informed Albinus, the appointed procurator, when on his journey to take 
possession of his procuratorship, that it was not lawful for Ananus to as¬ 
semble a Sanhedrin without his consent, whereupon Albinus wrote in anger 
to Ananus and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what 
he had done. From this we may conclude that the jus vitae mortisque was 
with the emperor, and without the consent of the procurator the Sanhedrin 
could not legally assemble and act in such a juridical cause. 

2 Talmudists, Isaac Casaubonus. .. t9 

3 Thus St. Aug. Horn, in Joann. 114, 4 : St malefactor est cur non licet? 

Nonnd lex eis praecepit, ne malefactoribus, praesertim {qualem istum pu- 

tabant) a suo Deo seductoribus parcantf Sed intelligendum est, eos dixisse, 

non sibi lie ere interficere quenquam propter diet festivitatem, quern celebrare 

jam coeperant. So also Chrys. Horn, in Joann. 83; Bede ad loc.; Baron. 

Ann. ad a. 34 n., 76. 



162 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


the endeavor of the chief priests and scribes. It is assumed, also, that 
the Sanhedrists had the malicious intention of casting the whole odium 
of the proceedings upon the Romans. 1 Against this explanation it should 
be noticed that the Sanhedrists’ words are quite general, and seem to pre¬ 
clude any such limitation. The remark added by the evangelist probably 
means: By divine ordinance it came to pass that the Sanhedrin was de¬ 
prived of power to execute a death sentence, in order to indicate what form 
of death Jesus would suffer. Crucifixion was, as has already been said, a 
Roman and not a Jewish punishment. If the other interpretation of the 
Sanhedrists’ words be accepted, another meaning must be assigned to St. 
John’s remark. Bynaeus 2 3 states it thus: divina providentia sic dir exit Judae- 
orum animos, ut Jesum accusarent illius criminis, quod ad tribunal per tine- 
bat Romani praesidis ac plecti saepe solebat supplicio crucis. 

After Pilate had shown by his firm and decided attitude that 
he would not deal with the case at all unless a definite charge 
were made against Jesus, the Jews were forced to abandon their 
defiant manner, and to bring forward a plainly worded charge 
in place of vague accusations. Only St. Luke records it, and 
according to him there were three points under which our Lord 
was accused of seditious and treasonable acts: He was said to 
stir up the people, to dissuade them from paying tribute, and 
to call Himself King, thus setting Himself up in direct opposi¬ 
tion to the emperor. The Sanhedrists were careful to appeal 
to their own experience and said “we have found,” because 
after the turn taken by the proceedings in the Sanhedrin they 
could not undertake to produce witnesses against Jesus. In 
their cunning and malice they represented as a political offence 
the solemn testimony borne in the Sanhedrin by Jesus, that He 
was Christ, the Son of God, and accused Him of calling Him¬ 
self a king. Two motives led them to act thus, — they wished to 
compel the procurator to take proceedings against Jesus, and 
also they desired Him to be condemned to death by crucifixion. 
The extreme malice of the Sanhedrists reveals itself in their 
imputing to our Lord Himself their own mistaken ideas of the 
Messiah, although His entire ministry had tended to prove these 
ideas erroneous, and so they declared that He did what they had 
vainly expected Him to do, and for failing to do of which they 
persecuted Him so cruelly. 


1 Tol.: malitiose isti judicium refutant, ut Christum crucifigant per Pila- 

tum, id enim mortis genus non erat secundum legem, nec a Judaeis unquam 
obseryatum, Romanorum erat, ideoque de tempore exclusant, ut Pila- 
tum inducant ad crucifigendum et simul turbae concitationem a se avertant 

3 HI, i, is. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 163 

The Roman governor could not without endangering his own 
position ignore a definite accusation of this kind. He had every 
reason closely to investigate the matter, for serious doubts were 
just then felt in Rome regarding the loyalty of the Jews, and 
Emperor Tiberius was prone to suspect treachery. Conse¬ 
quently Pilate proceeded to examine Jesus. Only St. John 1 
gives a detailed account of this examination; the synoptic 
evangelists 2 merely record the testimony borne by our Lord to 
Himself. 

The examination of Jesus took place, as may be inferred from St. John’s 
narrative, in the judgment hall of the Praetorium, and not in the open 
courtyard in front of the palace, where the conversation between Pilate and 
the Sanhedrists had occurred. After hearing the accusation, the procurator 
went into the hall and sent for Jesus, who had meantime been kept stand¬ 
ing at the back of the hall, in order to question Him. Some commentators 3 
assume that our Lord stood facing His enemies when the charge was 
brought against Him, and that He was then summoned by Pilate to enter 
the Praetorium for the purpose of examination. It must be admitted that 
this hypothesis is more in keeping with the ordinary Roman procedure, 
which required prosecutor and accused to appear at the same time before 
the tribunal, but on the other hand, for a procurator to leave the court was 
a concession to the Jews, and we need not therefore assume that Jesus also 
went out with Pilate. 

Pilate asked our Lord a direct question: “ Art thou the king 
of the Jews ? ” He alluded only to this one point because it was 
the most important, and also, in the sense given it by the Jews, 
comprised the two other charges. 4 The question was neither 
ironical nor expressive of scornful pity for our Lord in His deep 
humiliation; it was asked because Pilate, as judge, wished to 
ascertain the true facts of the case. 5 Hence the emphasis is not 
on the words “ art thou,” but on “ the king of the Jews.” 

The answer given by Jesus to Pilate’s question. Before re¬ 
plying, our Lord asked Pilate a question: “ Sayest thou this 
thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of me?” Christ 
wished to elicit the statement that the question, which summed 
up all the charges against Him, had been prompted by the Jews, 
and He desired to have an opportunity of proclaiming before 
the Roman tribunal the true nature of the Messianic kingdom, 


1 xviii. 33-38. 

2 Matthew xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii. 3. 

3 Bynaeus, III, 1, 21; Laurent and others. 

4 Tol.: ex hoc. enim reliqua duo dependebant. 

6 Bynaeus, III, 1, 21, crimen cogniturus ut judex. 



i6 4 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

which was so completely misrepresented by the Sanhedrists. 
The audacity of the question irritated the haughty Roman, who 
nevertheless answered, though in an angry tone, that he had 
only spoken at the suggestion of the accusers and especially of 
the high priests. At the same time he asked our Lord bluntly 
what He had done to justify such an accusation, or what other 
crime He had committed deserving of punishment, if the charge 
of calling Himself King of the Jews were false: quid aliud forte 
fecisset, unde tradi judici dignus esset . 1 

The important moment had come when Jesus was to give 
testimony before the Gentile tribunal, and to show that the ac¬ 
cusations brought against Him by the Sanhedrin were devoid 
of all foundation. St. Augustine introduces his discussion of 
this testimony with the words: audite ergo Judaei et gentes, audi 
circumcisio et praeputium, audite omnia regna: non impedio 
dominationem vestram in hoc mundo. Regnum meum non est 
de hoc mundo. Nolite metuere metu vanissimo 2 Jesus men¬ 
tioned three points to Pilate: the origin and nature of His King¬ 
dom, His dignity as King, and His task as the Messiah. The 
first and third points are recorded only by St. John, the second 
by all four evangelists. 

The Kingdom of Christ. Most solemnly did Jesus declare to 
Pilate that He was the founder of a kingdom, which He three 
times spoke of as “ My Kingdom.” It belonged not to the world 
in origin nor in constitution, and as evidence of this fact He 
pointed out that He, the founder of the kingdom, was deprived 
of all human assistance. Christ’s kingdom is, as the synoptic 
evangelists call it, a kingdom of God, a heavenly kingdom; and 
the kingdom of the Messiah is heavenly in three respects: it is 
heavenly in its origin, having been founded by the Son of God, 
who came down from heaven; it is heavenly in its possession, for, 
according to St. John’s testimony, it contains and supplies the 
fullness of grace and truth; and it is heavenly in its aims, since 
it effects the salvation of its members. The treasure of ever¬ 
lasting salvation furnished by the Messianic kingdom is 
mentioned frequently in St. John’s gospel, but the expression 
“ Kingdom of God ” occurs only twice. 3 

Jesus had already taught the Jews that the Kingdom of God 

1 Aug. Tract in Joann. 115, 1. 

8 John iii. 3, 5. 


2 Aug. /. c. 115, 2. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 165 

would not reveal itself in outward splendor, like an earthly 
kingdom, but would manifest itself by means of a force pene¬ 
trating and influencing the hearts of men. He had illustrated 
the same truth by comparing the Messianic kingdom with 
leaven. 1 Eusebius tells Us that when our Saviour’s relatives 
were questioned by Emperor Domitian regarding Christ and His 
Kingdom, they replied that it was not a secular, earthly king¬ 
dom, but heavenly and angelic, which would appear in the full¬ 
ness of time, when Christ would come in glory to judge the 
living and the dead, and to requite every man according to his 
works. 2 On hearing this, it is said that Domitian simply de¬ 
spised the speakers, and inflicted no punishment upon them. 
Many commentators refer to our Lord’s testimony in this and 
the next verse the words addressed by St. Paul to Timothy: 3 
“ I charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, and be¬ 
fore Christ Jesus, who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate, a 
good confession.” 

When our Lord spoke of His Kingdom, Pilate retorted, “ Art 
thou a king then ? ” These words are regarded by some as an 
expression of astonishment, by others as contemptuous, but 
it is best to consider them the manifestation of the profound 
impression made by Christ’s speech upon His judge. Jesus 
answered this question in the affirmative, as we have already 
pointed out; the words “thou sayest it” were a Hebrew form 
of affirmation. Having thus acknowledged Himself before 
Pilate to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews, our Lord went 
on to explain solemnly the purpose of His incarnation and of 
His public ministry, viz., to bear testimony to the truth. The 
words “ I was born ” should not be understood as referring to 
the eternal procession of the Son of God from the substance 
of the Father, but as relating to His incarnation. 4 

The purpose of His incarnation and public ministry was 
stated briefly and comprehensively by our Lord in the words 
“give testimony to the truth,” i.e., to proclaim the complete 
revelation of God, the tidings of salvation, and to testify to its 


1 Matthew xiii. 33. 

* H. E. 3, 20. 

8 1 Tim. vi. 13 - .. . 

4 Aug. Horn, in Joann. 115, 4: mamfestum est, eum temporalem suam na - 
tivitateni hie commemorasse, qua incarnatus venit in mundum, non illam 
sine initio, qua Deus erat, per quern pater condidit mundum. 




166 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


truth. Christ’s whole activity is His testimony to the truth of 
His doctrine; everything bore witness to it, — His miracles, the 
fulfillment of His prophecies, His Passion, Death, Resurrec¬ 
tion, and Ascension, and the history of His Church. Because 
by His deeds He testified to the truth of His doctrine, He 
frequently spoke of it as His testimony. 1 

This doctrine has power to deliver mankind from the bondage 
to the devil and to bestow upon them the liberty of the children 
of God, 2 but it has this effect only in the case of those who are 
“ of the truth,” i.e., who are inwardly susceptible to it, accept 
it with humble faith, and make it the rule guiding all their 
thoughts, feelings, actions, and general behavior, those, in short, 
who have a firm faith in Christ’s teaching and practise it in 
their daily life. The verb “ to hear ” should be understood here, 
as elsewhere in St. John’s gospel, in the sense: to hear and 
receive with faith and to carry out obediently. 3 

Our Lord’s magnificent testimony to Himself caused Pilate 
to ask, “What is truth?” Very different opinions have been 
expressed concerning this question; 4 some commentators, e.g., 
St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, and St. 
Thomas, regard it as an expression of real desire for truth; 
while others, e.g., Toletus, Maier, Bisping, Schegg, and Schanz, 
think it is the contemptuous utterance of a worldly man without 
any appreciation or comprehension of truth, who regarded Jesus 
merely as a religious fanatic. Our knowledge of the procura¬ 
tor’s character renders the latter view the more probable, al¬ 
though it need not absolutely exclude the former, as Pilate 
showed several times during the trial that he was capable of 
better feelings. 

Renewed discussion between Pilate and the Sanhedrists. The 
question “What is truth?” marked the close of our Lord’s 
first appearance before Pilate. Our Saviour had declared that 
He was the founder of a heavenly kingdom, that He had come 
down from heaven to be the King of that kingdom, and that 
the reason why He had come to this world was to make known 
the tidings of salvation and bear witness to their truth. There 


1 John iii. II, 32. 

2 John viii. 21--59. 

3 Aug. 1 . c.: audit utique interioribus auribus, id est, obaudit voci meae. 

4 Those of the earlier commentators are given by Bynaeus, III, 1, 29. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 167 

is a good deal of evidence, especially in St. John’s gospel, to 
show that our Lord’s dignified personality and majestic words 
made a profound and even overpowering impression upon those 
who came in contact with Him, 1 and we naturally inquire what 
impression He made upon the Roman governor. The answer 
is furnished in the account given by the evangelists of the re¬ 
newed discussion between Pilate and the Sanhedrists, Pilate 
went out of the hall to address the Jews, and Jesus followed 
him. 2 The result of the examination was announced by the 
procurator in words recorded by both St. Luke and St. John: 
“ I find no cause in this man.” This was an authoritative and 
emphatic declaration that there was no justification for the 
charge of turbulence and treachery brought by the Jews against 
Jesus. 

This acquittal was followed by a discussion with the Jews, 
recorded only by the synoptic evangelists. In their hatred and 
fury the high priests would not acknowledge a failure of their 
efforts, and they exerted themselves to the utmost in order to 
attain their end. If we compare St. Mark’s and St. Luke’s 3 
accounts, we see that they recklessly accused Jesus of all sorts 
of offences, and represented Him as a very dangerous agitator, 
whose activity threatened to disturb the public peace of the 
whole country. Pilate called upon our Lord to answer this 
serious charge, but, to the procurator’s amazement, He gave 
no reply. An answer would have been useless in the face of 
such accusers, who would be satisfied with nothing short of His 
death, as well as unnecessary in regard to Pilate, who had just 
pronounced our Lord to be perfectly innocent. The charges 
were only passionate repetitions of previous accusations, and 
the procurator was convinced that these were groundless. The 
majestic calm with which Jesus faced the base slanders of His 
adversaries aroused the astonishment of the proud Roman; 
Pilate was in an unpleasant situation, and in order to extricate 
himself from it he sent Jesus to Herod. 

A harmonistic note will not be out of place here. The accounts of our 
Lord’s first trial before Pilate are arranged in the following order: (1) 
John xviii. 38; Luke xxiii. 4; (2) Luke xxiii. 5; (3) Matthew xxvii. 12-14; 


1 Compare John i. 41, 46; ii. 13 seqq.; iv. 29. 

3 Compare Matthew xxvii. 13; Mark xv. 4. 
8 Mark xv. 3; Luke xxiii. 5. 




168 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Mark xv. 3-5; (4) Luke xxiii. 6, 7. This arrangement is not, however, 
universally accepted by commentators; for instance, Bynaeus * 1 reverses the 
sections numbered (2) and (3) respectively, and some later scholars follow 
him in this point. 


VII. Christ Before Herod 

Luke xxiii. 8-12 

8. And Herod seeing Jesus, was 
very glad, for he was desirous of a 
long time to see him, because he had 
heard many things of him; and he 
hoped to see some sign wrought by 
him. 

9. And he questioned him in 
many words. But he answered him 
nothing. 

St. Luke alone relates how Jesus was sent by Pilate to Herod, 
who mocked him. This Herod was the son of Herod the Great. 
In the New Testament he is called simply Herod, but Josephus 
speaks of him as Antipas, and to distinguish him from his father 
he is generally called Herod Antipas, or Herod the tetrarch, 
which title he assumed when, on his father’s death, he became 
ruler of Galilee and Peraea. 2 He resided at Tiberias, a splendid 
town he had built on the western shore of the lake of Tiberias; 
after a reign of forty-two years (from 4 b.c. to 39 a.d.) he 
was deposed by Caligula and sent into exile at Lugdunum 
(Lyons) in Gaul. 3 We find in the New Testament indications 
of Herod’s cruelty and cunning. He was at that moment in 
Jerusalem for the occasion of the festival, and Pilate, on hear¬ 
ing that Jesus came from Galilee, sent him to Herod, the tetrarch 
of that district. 

Various answers are given to the! question where Herod stayed during 
his temporary residence in Jerusalem. It is not in itself an important mat¬ 
ter. According to a tradition dating back to the fourteenth century, Herod’s 
house, whither Jesus was then taken, stood in the new part of the city, on 
the hill called Bezetha, northwest of the fortress Antonia, and between the 
Damascus Gate and Herod’s Gate. According to some authorities Herod 
lived in the so-called Asmonean Palace near the Xystus, on the northeast 
corner of Mount Sion, directly opposite the Antonia. Others think that he 
occupied the magnificent palace built in the upper city by Herod the Great, 
which Josephus describes as a masterpiece of architecture, surpassing even 

1 III, 1, 32-35. 2 Compare Matthew ii. 22; Luke ix. 17. 

1 Jos. Ant. xviii. 7. 


10. And the chief priests and the 
scribes stood by, earnestly accusing 
him. 

11. And Herod with his army set 
him at nought; and mocked him, 
putting on him a white garment, and 
sent him back to Pilate. 

12. And Herod and Pilate were 
made friends that same day; for 
before they were enemies one to 
another. 





THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 169 

the Temple in splendor. 1 The verb used by St. Luke in verse 7 implies that 
Jesus was sent up from Pilate to Herod, indicating that Herod’s house was 
on a higher level than the Antonia. A study of the gospel narrative en¬ 
ables us to see why Pilate sent our Lord to Herod: he wished to extricate 
himself from a painful dilemma, if not completely, at least for a time; 
also he desired to show courtesy to Herod, and, eventually, to obtain in¬ 
formation from the ruler of Galilee regarding our Lord’s work in that 
part of Palestine. 

It was still early in the morning when Jesus was sent to 
Herod; He was guarded by Roman soldiers, and the Sanhe- 
drists, who accused Him, accompanied them. The tetrarch re¬ 
ceived Him at once in one of the palace halls, which were famous 
for their size and artistic decoration. Herod was attended by 
the military retinue with which he had come to Jerusalem. Al¬ 
though our Lord’s Messianic labors had lasted three full years, 
and had been carried on chiefly in Galilee and Peraea, districts 
under Herod’s control, the tetrarch had never seen Him; in fact 
it was only in the second year of the public ministry, after the 
sending forth of the apostles, that Herod had heard much about 
Jesus. The reason of this remarkable ignorance on Herod’s 
part was probably that he was often away from Galilee, and his 
attention was devoted to the wars with Aretas, king of Arabia, 
whose wrath he had incurred by dismissing his wife, a daughter 
of Aretas, in order to marry Herodias. 2 Moreover, Herod was 
a self-indulgent man, unlikely to trouble himself much about 
religious questions. He had, however, for a long time been 
anxious to see Jesus, and was glad to have an opportunity of 
gratifying his curiosity. He was too frivolous to care about the 
salvation of his soul, but, as St. Luke says, he hoped that Jesus 
would work some miracles in his presence, and so provide him 
with entertainment. Herod seems to have felt no doubt that 
our Lord, who had worked so many miracles before the common 
people in Galilee, would be all the more ready to do the same 
before him, the tetrarch, because it would be important for one 
in so dangerous a position to secure the goodwill of the ruler of 
his country. But the worldly-wise Herod was disappointed, for 
our Lord, far from working miracles in his presence, gave not 
even an answer to his repeated questions, or to the angry accu¬ 
sations of the Sanhedrists. The evangelist does not tell us what 
questions Herod asked, but we may infer from the circumstances 


1 B. J. v. 4, 4 * 


Baronius. 



170 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


the subjects to which they referred. Herod must have ques¬ 
tioned Jesus about His ministry in Galilee and its purpose, and 
probably also about the charge brought against Him by the 
Sanhedrin. The anger displayed by the Sanhedrists in Herod’s 
presence was partly due to his present and partly to his former 
attitude toward Jesus. The fact that Herod received Him in 
state displeased them, the joy that Herod professed at seeing 
Jesus made them uneasy, and the apparent sympathy with 
Jesus and His work, that they fancied could be discovered in 
the numerous questions asked, forced them to fear an undesired 
result from the proceedings. This fear seemed all the more 
reasonable because they knew that Herod’s conscience had re¬ 
proached him for his treatment of John the Baptist, and there¬ 
fore he had been unwilling to take any action against Jesus, and 
had even tried, through the Pharisees, to induce him to leave 
the country. 1 All these were in the eyes of the Sanhedrists 
sufficient reasons for regarding their lack of success hitherto as 
a serious matter, and for doing their utmost to gain a hearing 
for their accusations against Jesus. He, however, neither tried 
to win Herod’s favor, nor did He fear the malice of His enemies, 
and was silent both when questioned by the former and when 
accused by the latter. This silence meant a condemnation of 
Herod, whose crafty wiles Jesus had previously disclosed, and 
also of the Sanhedrists, of whose malice He had had ample 
experience during the last few hours. Herod felt the reproach 
conveyed in our Lord’s silence, and took his revenge by ordering 
a white garment to be put on Him in mockery, before all his 
retinue. The general meaning of this action is clear — Herod 
wished to ridicule Jesus for claiming to be a king. It is uncer¬ 
tain whether Herod chose this form of mockery with reference 
to the Jewish ritual, which required priests to wear white linen 
garments, or whether he was thinking of the white toga worn 
by Romans when seeking election to office. In reality, the white 
garment, which Herod intended as a mockery of the kingship 
of the Messiah, was a symbol of our Lord’s innocence and royal 
dignity. At the same time Herod wished to show that he 
considered Jesus a harmless enthusiast. There is nothing in 
the text to prove whether our Lord was still wearing the white 
garment when He was sent back to Pilate. 


1 Compare Luke ix. 7; xiii. 31. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 171 

The evangelist concludes his account of the incident with the 
remark that Herod and Pilate were made friends that same day, 
for before they had been enemies one to another. 1 The cause 
of their previous enmity may have been an occurrence mentioned 
by St. Luke. 2 Pilate had ordered some Galileans to be killed 
in the holy place at Jerusalem while a sacrifice was being of¬ 
fered. The Galileans were notoriously a quarrelsome race, and 
were feared in consequence. These particular persons had prob¬ 
ably raised a disturbance, which had been brutally suppressed 
by the Roman soldiery. 


VIII. The Condemnation of Christ and the Release 

of Barabbas 


Matthew xxvii. 15-21 

15. Now upon the solemn day the 
governor was accustomed to release 
to the people one prisoner, whom 
they would. 

16. And he had then a notorious 
prisoner, that was called Barabbas. 

17. They therefore being gathered 
together, Pilate said, Whom will 
you that I release to you, Barabbas, 
or Jesus that is called Christ? 

18. For he knew that for envy 
they had delivered him. 

19. And as he was sitting in the 
place of judgment, his wife sent to 
him, saying: Have thou nothing to 
do with that just man. For I have 
suffered many things this day in a 
dream because of him. 

20. But the chief priests and an¬ 
cients persuaded the people, that 
they should ask Barabbas, and make 
Jesus away. 

21. And the governor answering, 
said to them: Whether will you of 
the two to be released unto you? 
But they said, Barabbas. 


Mark xv. 6-13 

6. Now on the festival day he 
was wont to release unto them one 
of the prisoners, whomsoever they 
demanded. 

7. And there was one called Bar¬ 
abbas, who was put in prison with 
some seditious men, who in the sedi¬ 
tion had committed murder. 

8. And when the multitude was 
come up, they began to desire that 
he would do, as he had ever done 
unto them. 

9. And Pilate answered them, 
and said: Will you that I release to 
you the king of the Jews? 

10. For he knew that the chief 
priests had delivered him up out of 
envy. 

11. But the chief priests moved 
the people, that he should rather re¬ 
lease Barabbas to them. 

12. And Pilate again answering, 
saith to them: What will you then 
that I do to the king of the Jews? 

13. But they again cried out, Cru¬ 
cify him. 


1 Bede ad loc.: Hoc nefandissimum Herodis et Pilati foedus, quod in 
occidendo Christo pepigerunt, hactenus eorum velut haereditario jure suc- 
cessores custodiunt, quando gentiles et Judaei sicut genere et religione, ita 
etiam mente dissidentes, in christianis tamen persequendis, Christique in 
eis fide perinienda consentiunt. 

* xiii. 1. 




172 THE PASSION AND 

Matthew xxvii. 22-26 

22. Pilate saith to them: What 
shall I do with Jesus that is called 
Christ? They say all: Let him be 
crucified. 

23. The governor said to them, 
Why, what evil hath he done? But 
they cried out the more, saying, Let 
him be crucified. 

24. And Pilate seeing that he pre¬ 
vailed nothing, but that rather a 
tumult was made, taking water 
washed his hands before the people, 
saying: I am innocent of the blood 
of this just man; look you to it. 

25. And the whole people answer¬ 
ing, said: His blood be upon us and 
upon our children. 

26. Then he released to them 
Barabbas. 

Luke xxiii. 13-22 

13. And Pilate calling together 
the chief priests, and the magis¬ 
trates, and the people, 

14. Said to them: You have pre¬ 
sented unto me this man, as one that 
perverteth the people, and behold I, 
having examined him before you, 
find no cause in this man in those 
things wherein you accuse him. 

15. No, nor Herod neither. For 
I sent you to him, and behold noth¬ 
ing worthy of death is done to him. 

16. I will chastise him therefore, 
and release him. 

17. Now of necessity he was to re¬ 
lease unto them one upon the feast- 
day. 

18. But the whole multitude to¬ 
gether cried out, saying: Away with 
this man, and release unto us Barab¬ 
bas: 

19. Who for a certain sedition 
made in the city, and for a murder, 
was cast into prison. 

20. And Pilate again spoke to 
them, desiring to release Jesus. 

21. But they cried again, saying, 
Crucify him, Crucify him. 

22. And he said to them the third 
time: Why, what evil hath this man 


GLORY OF CHRIST 

Mark xv. 14-15 

14. And Pilate saith to them: 
Why, what evil hath he done? But 
they cried out the more: Crucify 
him. 

15. And so Pilate being willing to 
satisfy the people, released to them 
Barabbas. 


John xviii. 39-40 

39. But you have a custom that I 
should release one unto you at the 
pasch; will you therefore that I re¬ 
lease unto you the king of the Jews? 

40. Then cried they all again, say¬ 
ing: Not this man, but Barabbas. 
Now Barabbas was a robber. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 173 


Luke xxiii. 23-25 

done? I find no cause of death in 
him; I will chastise him therefore, 
and let him go. 

23. But they were instant with 
loud voices requiring that he might 
be crucified; and their voices pre¬ 
vailed. 

24. And Pilate gave sentence that 
it should be as they required. 

25. And he released unto them 
him who for murder and sedition had 
been cast into prison, whom they had 
desired. 

After Herod had sent Jesus back to the Praetorium, Pilate 
resumed the trial, which ended with the release of Barabbas and 
the condemnation of our Lord. St. Luke gives a very exact 
account of the proceedings, and from his report we learn what 
actually occurred. St. Matthew alone records the dream of 
Pilate’s wife, while St. John says concerning the whole episode 
merely that the Jews demanded the release of Barabbas. 

The evangelists say nothing as to the scene of our Lord’s second appear¬ 
ance before Pilate, but it undoubtedly took place in the open court in front 
of the fortress called Antonia, opposite the Temple, for the reason, which 
had prevented the Jews from entering the praetor’s palace in the morning, 
still existed. The present transaction differed from the former, inasmuch 
as this time, besides the Sanhedrists, who were prosecuting our Lord, a 
crowd of people had assembled, who took an active part in the course of 
events. St. Luke speaks of chief-priests, magistrates, and people as present. 
The “ magistrates ” were members of the Sanhedrin, and belonged to the 
class of scribes and ancients. It is quite plain from the gospel narrative 
that the people were present from the beginning of the proceedings, and 
were not summoned only after Pilate’s discussion with the Sanhedrists was 
at an end. 

Pilate’s brief account of the previous proceedings. Our 
Saviour was sent back by Herod to Pilate, who took Him again 
into the court of justice within the Praetorium, and then went 
out to speak to the Sanhedrists, who had also returned from 
Herod’s palace, and to the crowd that had assembled in the 
meantime. Pilate invited both classes to approach, and then 
addressed them, giving first a short outline of the course and 
results of the previous trial, regarding which St. Luke alone 
gives us any details. Pilate declared that the charge brought 
against Jesus of having stirred up the people to rebellion had 



174 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

been investigated by him in the presence of the Sanhedrists, 
and had proved quite groundless, 

Pilate’s statement that he had examined Jesus before the Sanhedrists does 
not contradict what was said on the subject of our Lord’s first examination 
before the procurator. We saw then that Pilate first heard what the San¬ 
hedrists had to say, and for this purpose went out in front of the Praeto- 
rium, while Jesus remained in the court of justice; then he questioned 
Jesus as to the accusation made against him, and finally took Him out to 
the Sanhedrists, communicated to them the result of the examination, listened 
to their renewed charges, and tried in vain to induce our Lord to answer 
them. It is obvious, therefore, that the procurator had no reason to fear 
contradiction, when he asserted that he had examined Jesus in the presence 
of the Sanhedrists. 

Pilate went on to say that Jesus had also been pronounced 
innocent by Herod, who was qualified to say whether, as the 
Sanhedrists claimed, Jesus had done anything wrong in Galilee. 
There can be no doubt that Pilate's subordinates had given him 
full information as to what occurred in Herod’s house. 1 At the 
same time we may assume that he rightly regarded Herod’s 
mockery of Jesus, and the fact that he sent Him back to the 
Praetorium, as equivalent to a declaration of our Lord’s 
innocence. 

Pilate’s unsuccessful attempts to save Jesus. The testimony 
to our Lord’s innocence that Herod had given, and his own pre¬ 
vious statement to the Sanhedrists, ought to have guided Pilate 
in his subsequent action, and have enabled him, if necessary, to 
withstand successfully any further accusations on the part of 
the Jews. But he wasted these advantages, and through weak¬ 
ness and human respect took a false step, of which the enemies 
of Christ were not slow to avail themselves, and thus put the 
procurator still more in the wrong. His first attempt to save 
Jesus was questionable and unsuccessful. St. Luke tells us that 
he proposed to the Sanhedrists to chastise our Lord, and then, 
if they were willing, to let Him go. 

The evangelist does not tell us how the Jews received Pilate’s 
proposal, but the course of events shows that it was rejected. 
It is improbable that the discussion concerning it was interrupted 
by the interference of the crowd. It is certain that Pilate did 
not intend to put Jesus to death, was in fact resolved to effect 

1 This remark of Pilate’s enables us to form some idea of the questions 
which Herod had asked Jesus (Luke xxiii. q). 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 175 

His release, but he committed a grave offence against justice in 
his attempt to do so. He showed himself ready to forsake the 
firm basis of justice, and thus played into the hands of our 
Lord’s implacable enemies. 

Pilate’s second attempt to save Jesus. Having been unsuc¬ 
cessful in pleading with the Sanhedrists, Pilate made another 
attempt to save Jesus, and, as all the evangelists record, appealed 
to the people. According to St. Mark, the crowd approached the 
procurator with the request that he would, as usual, release a 
prisoner during the festival, and in reply Pilate asked a very 
definite question , 1 which St. Matthew gives in the fullest form: 
“Whom will you that I release to you, Barabbas, or Jesus that 
is called Christ?” The other three evangelists do not say that 
Pilate offered the people the choice between Jesus and Barabbas, 
but that he: did so can easily be inferred from their narratives. 
When they tell us that Pilate proposed to release Jesus, they are 
true to facts, because the procurator was really aiming at the 
release of our Lord, not at that of Barabbas. He called Jesus 
“ Christ, the King of the Jews,” and used the name seriously, 
not contemptuously, for he wished to induce the people to ask 
for the release of Jesus. 

It is a debated point whether the custom of setting free a prisoner at the 
Pasch was of Jewish or Roman origin. Since, however, the Pasch com¬ 
memorated the deliverance of the Jews from the bondage in Egypt, and 
since St. John represents Pilate as calling it a Jewish custom, we must as¬ 
sume that it was such. 2 3 Against this some commentators, ancient as well as 
modern, think that the release of a prisoner was a concession made to the 
Jews by the Romans, as such acts of mercy were usual at Roman festivals, 
especially at lectisternia, i.e., festivals when banquets were prepared for the 
gods, whereas apart from the gospels there is no trace of any such custom 
among the Jews.* A prisoner was not released, as some commentators as¬ 
sume, at all the chief Jewish festivals, but only once in each year, at the 
Pasch. 

Pilate offered the Jews the choice between Christ, their Mes¬ 
siah, and a notorious criminal named Barabbas, a highway 
robber, who had been imprisoned because he had raised an up¬ 
roar in Jerusalem and during the same had committed murder. 


1 Bynaeus III, 3, 6, 7; Jansenius, however, writes: dixit Pilatus prae- 
veniens populi postulationem. 

2 Maid., Jansenius, and others. 

3 Hugo Grotius, Schegg, Bisping, Reischl; Bynaeus (III, 3, 3 ) is uncertain 
which view to adopt. 



176 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

The name Barabbas — there is not much evidence in support of the spell¬ 
ing Barrabas or Barrabbas — signifies, etymologically, “ son of their father ” 
or “ son of their teacher.” There is a tradition that Barabbas was only a 
patronymic, and that his full name was Jesus Barabbas. It is not improbable 
that the original reading of Matthew xxvi. 17 was: Jesu bar Abba {vide Bis- 
ping). Then the question of Pilate was: ’I yaovv papafifiav, ij ’lyaovv tov 
Xe7 bfievov Xpiaioy, St. Jerome sees in the name an allusion to the devil, 
the father of the Jews, whose children they apparently declared them¬ 
selves to be when they rejected their Messiah, and desired Barabbas in His 
stead. 1 * 3 According to St. Matthew and St. Mark, Pilate referred the matter 
to the people, being aware that the Sanhedrists were motived by envy, and 
he hoped to bring wholesome pressure to bear upon them, if he could show 
that the majority of the people were favorably disposed toward Jesus, as 
many of them owed Him a great debt of gratitude. Pilate thought that he 
could secure the release of Jesus by appealing to the people and offering 
them the choice between a notorious criminal and an acknowledged bene¬ 
factor.* Schegg suggests that just then Barabbas was the only criminal in 
prison at Jerusalem not actually under condemnation, and therefore Pilate 
had no one else to offer as an alternative to Christ. This seems, however, 
unlikely, nor is it easy to see how a still uncondemned criminal could have 
been pardoned. There is a far more probable statement in a manuscript of 
the Acts of Pilate,* according to which the murderer Barabbas was not the 
only prisoner but one of many then in captivity at Jerusalem. 

The dream of Pilate’s wife. Pilate’s proposal took the people 
and the Sanhedrists by surprise, and caused an interruption in 
the proceeding's. Just at this moment a significant warning was 
brought to the procurator from his wife, who sent a message 
containing the words recorded by St. Matthew: “ Have nothing 
to do with that just man [i.e., do him no harm], for I have 
suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” 

At an earlier period Roman governors had to leave their wives behind 
when they went to their provinces, but toward the close of the reign of 
Augustus it became usual for the wife to accompany her husband. 4 * The 
apocryphal Acts of Pilate contain an account of the message sent by his 
wife, and also further information regarding this very remarkable woman. 
According to some manuscripts of the book, Pilate himself said that his 
wife’s name was Procla or Procula, 6 and she is frequently mentioned by 
later authors as Claudia Procula. We learn from the same authority that 
Pilate declared his wife to be a proselyte, well known to the Jews, and with 
no leaning toward paganism, but rather agreeing with the accusers of 

1 Jer. in Ps. cviii.: nolunt habere regem Jesum, habeant regem Barab- 

bam, qui interpretatur filius patris, h. e. diaboli. Compare John viii. 14. 

3 Jansenius, on Matthew xxvii. 17: restringit populum ad duos tantum, 
unum de industria selectum facinorosissimum, ne subesset aliqua mxsericor - 
diae causa, alterum innocentissimum, ut cogeretur ipsum eligere. 

* Tischendorf, Evang. apocr. 241. 

4 Ulpian, De officio procons. et legat. 4, 2, gives the reason for the orig¬ 
inal regulation: ut, si quid uxores eorum, qui ad officio proficiscuntur, de- 

liquerint, ab ipsis ratio et vindicta exigatur. 

6 Tisch. Evang. apocr. 223, 343. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 177 

Christ in their profession of Judaism. 1 2 Another manuscript states how 
Pilate went on to say that his wife, though a Gentile ( pagana ), had built 
many synagogues for the Jews. That the procurator’s wife was a prose¬ 
lyte seems quite likely, as, according to the testimony of the Acts of the 
Apostles 3 and of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, many aristocratic 
Gentile women of religious disposition tended to adopt Judaism, because the 
pagan religions were becoming more and more corrupt, and less capable of 
satisfying their religious aspirations. 3 


The dream of Pilate's wife is referred by some to natural 
causes, by others to supernatural influences. From the psycho¬ 
logical point of view the occurrence of an alarming dream can 
easily be accounted for in the case of a woman who had taken 
great interest in the personality and teaching of Jesus, and 
whose thoughts for some days had been much occupied with 
Him, because of the excitement aroused in the city by His in¬ 
structions and discussions. She had probably heard that the 
Sanhedrin had caused Him to be arrested and condemned dur¬ 
ing the night, and assumed that her husband, who had gone 
early to preside over some judicial proceedings, might be on the 
point of pronouncing sentence of death against Jesus. This 
line of reasoning may be quite correct, but in view of the ex¬ 
ceptional nature of the case, we may safely follow the great 
majority of commentators and regard the dream as due to some 
supernatural influence. When Pilate, in addressing the Jews, 
referred to his wife’s dream, they, according to the Acts of 
Pilate, ascribed it to witchcraft. 4 Some of the older commenta¬ 
tors suppose that the dream was due to the action of the devil, 
who, by means of the intervention of the procurator’s wife, 
aimed at frustrating the accomplishment of the work of 
redemption. 5 


1 The exact words are : otSaro, 6n 7] yvvf] /iov deoffe^rjs £<ttiv icai fiaWov 
lovdatfei abv v/xiv. 

2 Compare Acts xiii. 16, 50; xvi. 14; xvii. 12. 

8 Ant. xviii. 3, 5; Orig. (Comm, in Matthew, n. 122) believes the re¬ 
port that Pilate’s wife was a Christian to be well grounded. Compare Ni- 
cephorus Cal. 1, 30. The so-called Chronicle of Dexter (compare Jerome, 
de vir. ill. c. 132) identifies Pilate’s wife with Claudia, a Christian mentioned 
in 2 Tim. iv. 21 (compare Migne, P. L. 31, 70). In some Greek monologies 
her name occurs as that of a saint on October 25th, and it is found in the 
Aethiopian calendar on June 25th (19th). 

4 Nonne diximus, quia magus (sc. Jesus) ? ecce sommorum phantasma 
misit ad uxorem tuam. . .. 

B Bede, ad loc.: Hac vice, non ante, sed mtellexit diabolus, per thnsti 
mortem nudandum et spolia humani generis sive in mundo sive apud tar- 
taros amissurum: et ideo satagebat per mulierem, per quam spolia mortis 



178 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

As, however, it seems best to adopt the opinion of the great 
majority of exegetes, both ancient and modern, and to ascribe 
the dream of the procurator’s wife to divine inspiration, we 
may see in her message a heaven-sent testimony to our Lord’s 
innocence, and a solemn declaration that He was just, in the 
fullest sense of the word. But this heaven-sent testimony to the 
innocence of Jesus did not cause the proceedings to turn in His 
favor. Such of the people as were well disposed toward Him 
were influenced by the Sanhedrists, who worked on the crowd 
for their own ends. We can see from St. Matthew’s narrative * 1 
that, while Pilate was speaking to his wife’s messengers the 
members of the Sanhedrin began, both personally and through 
others, to stir up the people against Jesus, and St. Mark shows 
how successful they were, for he says that they “ moved ” the 
people. After dismissing the messengers, Pilate again addressed 
the Jews, and repeated his offer to release either Jesus or Barab- 
bas, and now the crowd was in complete agreement with the 
Sanhedrists, and, as St. Luke tells us, all united in asking for 
Barabbas. Pilate asked the Jews, “ What shall I do then with 
Jesus that is called Christ?” and it is plain from St. Luke that 
his intention again was to find some excuse for releasing our 
Lord. His intention was good, but it was dangerous to ask such 
a question, as thereby he subordinated his own authority as 
judge to the demands of the Jews, who were in a state of in¬ 
tense excitement and filled with hatred. All that custom en¬ 
titled them to claim was the release of a prisoner, and in his 
attempt to propitiate the Jews, Pilate obviously took the risk 
of doing Jesus a great injustice . 2 Indeed, he was destined to 
see at once the evil result of his lack of firmness, and, by disre¬ 
garding the rules of judicial procedure, he gave the angry people 
the opportunity of demanding the crucifixion of Christ. Equally 
dangerous was the further question, “ Why, what evil hath he 
done?” Pilate himself, as the judge, and not the excited popu¬ 
lace, was the one to answer this question. The question robbed 


invaserat, Christum eripere de manibus Judaeorum, ne per illius mortem 
ipse amitteret mortis imperium. Also Rabanus in the Catena aurea and St. 
Anselm. Reference is frequently made to St. Ignatius, Ep. ad Phil., c. 5, 
but I have failed to discover any such statement in this epistle. 

1 Compare xxvii. 20 with 19 and 21. 

2 Jansenius: Cum populo gratificare decrevisset, ad praecipitium sum- 
mae iniquitatis deduetus est. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 179 

Jesus of the protection of the law, and exposed Him to the 
reckless fury of His worst enemies, and, as all the evangelists 
tell us, with a loud outcry the Jews began to clamor for His 
death. 

At last Pilate perceived the harm wrought by his weakness 
and irresolution. Seeing that it was impossible to save our 
Lord’s life, he had recourse to the symbolical action of washing 
his hands, described by St. Matthew thus: “ Pilate . . . taking 
water, washed his hands before the people, saying: I am inno¬ 
cent of the blood of this just man; look you to it.” It should 
be noticed that by the words, spoken while he washed his hands, 
Pilate himself explained what the action symbolized. 

The symbolical washing of hands seems to have been a Jewish custom. 1 
Baronius 2 supposes it to have originated in the rules laid down by Moses, 
in Deut. xxi., regarding the action to be taken in cases where a murder was 
committed and the murderer could not be discovered. The ancients of the 
city nearest to the scene of the crime had to wash their hands over a heifer 
that had been killed, and were to say, “ Our hands did not shed this blood, 
nor did our eyes see it.” Pilate’s intention when he washed his hands is 
stated by Bynaeus thus: ut Judaei injustitiae accusari se intelligerent facilius, 
cum ipse purum se conspicuo signo testaretur a sanguine innocentis. But 
Pilate’s own words contain his self-condemnation: absolvit Christum, se 
ipsum condemnat. In vain he tried by means of the words “ Look you to 
it” to cast upon the Jews all the blame for the murder of an innocent man. 
St. Augustine 3 remarks: laverit licet manus Pilatus, tamen sua facta non 
diluit; quamvis abstergere se putaverit justi sanguinem de suis membris, 
eodem tamen sanguine mens ejus tenetur infecta, ipse enim occidit Christum, 
qui eum tradidit occidendum. Yet even this warning did not make the Jews 
reflect on what they were doing. When Pilate washed his hands in their 
presence they cried, as St. Matthew tells us, “ His blood is upon us and upon 
our children,” meaning that they were willing to assume full responsibility 
for shedding the Blood of Christ. History bears testimony to the terrible 
punishment that the Jews have had to endure for their crime. 


IX. Christ is Scourged and Mocked 


Matthew xxvii. 26-27 

26. (Pilate) having scourged Jesus, 
delivered him unto them to be cruci¬ 
fied. 

27. Then the soldiers of the gover¬ 
nor taking Jesus into the hall, gath¬ 
ered together unto him the whole 
band; 


Mark xv. 15-16 

15. (Pilate) delivered up Jesus, 
when he had scourged him, to be 
crucified. 

16. And the soldiers led him 
away into the court of the palace, 
and they called together the whole 
band. 


1 Compare Bynaeus, III, 4, 51. 

3 Sermo 118 de temp. 


2 Ann. ad an. 34, n. 89. 




180 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Matthew xxvii. 28-30 

28. And stripping, him, they put a 
scarlet cloak about him. 

29. And platting a crown of 
thorns, they put it upon his head, 
and a reed in his right hand. And 
bowing the knee before him, they 
mocked him, saying: Hail, king of 
the Jews. 

30. And spitting upon him, they 
took the reed, and struck his head. 

John xix. 1-3 

1. Then therefore Pilate took 
Jesus, and scourged him. 

2. And the soldiers platting a 
crown of thorns, put it upon his 
head; and they put on him a purple 
garment. 

3. And they came to him and 
said: Hail, king of the Jews; and 
they gave him blows. 


Mark xv. 17-19 

J 17. And they clothed him with 
purple, and platting a crown of 
thorns, they put it upon him. 

18. And they began to salute him: 
Hail, king of the Jews. 

19. And they struck his head 
with a reed; And they did spit on 
him. And bowing their knees, they 
adored him. 


After all his attempts to save Jesus had failed, Pilate acceded 
to the demand of the Jews, and allowed our Lord to be crucified. 
The scourging- was inflicted as a preliminary to the crucifixion 
and had therefore no connection with the words of Pilate: 
“I will chastise him and release him” (Luke xxiii. 16). The 
formal death sentence, however, was pronounced after the 
scourging. 

The Jewish as well as the Roman law prescribed scourging as one of 
their modes of chastisement. The Jews used a scourge consisting of three 
thongs, and the highest number of strokes inflicted was thirty-nine (2 Cor. 
xi. 24). In our Lord’s case the scourging was performed by Roman sol¬ 
diers in the Roman fashion. It was a peculiarly cruel, shameful, and agon¬ 
izing punishment to which Roman citizens could not be condemned. The 
blows were given with a stick or rod, or often with elm-twigs, but a 
scourge in the strict sense of the word was frequently employed. It con¬ 
sisted of a short handle, to which were attached a number of leather lashes, 
with leaden weights fastened to the ends. The judge generally ordered the 
delinquent to be stripped and bound to a pillar, so that the punishment 
might be inflicted easily and with efficacy. Pagan and Christian writers 
alike bear testimony to its extraordinary barbarity. In a letter emanating 
from the Christian community in Smyrna, and preserved by Eusebius, 1 we 
read: “ The bystanders were filled with horror when they saw how the 
flesh of the martyrs was torn off and the veins and arteries laid bare, and 
even the entrails were exposed to view.” 


1 H. E. 4, 23. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 181 

The scourging of Jesus. The evangelists give us no details 
regarding our Lord’s scourging. St. John alone in his supple¬ 
mentary account of the Ecce Homo enables us to infer that the 
punishment was inflicted upon Jesus with extreme cruelty. There 
is no reason to doubt that He underwent it in its most painful 
and shameful form, and was beaten savagely with scourges. 
The following are the reasons that justify this conclusion: All 
the three evangelists use the technical word designating this 
kind of scourging; St. John gives the Greek, St. Matthew and 
St. Mark the Latinized form of the word. The punishment was 
inflicted by brutal and merciless Roman soldiers, and after it 
our Lord’s appearance was so pitiable that Pilate made it a 
reason for suggesting His release. Our divine Saviour was to 
be treated as a common slave and criminal, because He was 
offering salvation to fallen men and making them heirs to the 
glory and bliss of heaven. 

According to very ancient reports, Jesus was bound to a 
pillar while He was scourged. The Pilgrim from Bordeaux 
bears testimony to this fact, in his account of his journey to 
the Holy Land in 333 and 334. 1 

In writing to Eustochium, a Roman lady, St. Jerome says 
that her mother Paula saw the actual pillar in Jerusalem to 
which Jesus is believed to have been bound. He writes: ostende- 
batur illi columna ecclesiae porticum sustinens infecta cruore 
Domini , ad quam vinctus dicitur dagellatus (or, according to 
another reading, ducitur et dagellatur) . 2 

St. Bede writes: columna marmorea stat in medio ecclesiae, 
cui adhaerens Dominus flagellatus est. Our Lord stood naked 
while He was scourged. We conclude this not only from de¬ 
scriptions given by profane writers of the manner in which 
criminals were scourged, but there is a definite statement to this 
effect of very early date. The Codex Vaticanus , the oldest 
Greek manuscript of the Bible that has come down to us, tells 
us that our Lord’s clothes were put on again after the scourg¬ 
ing: Although the reading of the passage is incorrect, it never¬ 
theless shows that the scribe believed Jesus to have been naked 
during His flagellation. Many of the early commentators lay 
stress upon the fact that our Lord, who was most pure and 


1 Itinerarium a Burdigalia Hierusalem usque. 

a Ep. 108, 9, ad Eustochium. Epitaphium Paulae matris. 



182 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


holy, endured this exposure of His body in expiation of men’s 
sins against modesty and chastity. 

The place of the scourging can be determined from the evan¬ 
gelists’ statements. St. Matthew and St. Mark say that, when 
it was over, our Saviour was taken into the hall or inner court 
of the Praetorium, thus implying that He was scourged in front 
of the building, at the place of judgment. The Romans usually 
set up a pillar near their tribunals, that criminals might be 
scourged there. Some scholars have assumed that our Lord 
was scourged inside the Praetorium, 1 but this is probably a 
mistake, nor can this theory derive support from the fact that 
Pilate brought Jesus out of the Praetorium to present Him to 
the people. According to the evangelists the scourging was 
performed by Roman soldiers, most likely by the men who 
afterwards crucified our Saviour. We learn from the passage 
already quoted from St. Jerome’s letter that in his lifetime the 
place of the scourging was already marked by a church. Later 
authors tell us that the chapel erected on the site bore the fol¬ 
lowing inscription: 

Sanctus Sanctorum damnatur voce reorum. 

Pro serins bellum patitur Deus atque flagellum. 

Haec bona crux Christi Simoni subvenit isti; 

Non vehit hanc gratis, quae dat cuncta beatis. 

The old chapel, having become completely ruinous, was replaced 
in 1839 by another, built by Duke Maximilian of Bavaria. 

. Why did Pilate order our Lord to be scourged? This ques¬ 
tion has often been discussed, and, before considering it, we 
must take into account the Biblical texts referring to it. St. 
Matthew and St. Mark agree in saying that Pilate, after scourg¬ 
ing Jesus, delivered Him to the Jews to be crucified. St. Luke 
does not actually state that our Lord was scourged, but says 
that Pilate gave sentence (farkKpivtv , Vulg. adjudicavit ) that 
it should be as they, i.e., the Jews, required. From the con¬ 
text it is plain that atrjpa , Vulg. petitio, can only refer to the 
Jews’ demand for our Lord’s crucifixion. St. Luke’s account 
throws light upon that of the other synoptic writers, and seems 
to show that Pilate had made up his mind to sentence Jesus 
to death before he ordered Him to be scourged, although the 


1 Bynaeus, III, 4, 6. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 183 

formal condemnation was not yet pronounced, for St. John’s 
account makes it plain that this took place only when Pilate’s 
last attempt to save Jesus had failed. 

If we bear these facts in mind, we shall not have much diffi¬ 
culty in seeing why Pilate ordered our Lord to be scourged. 
Three distinct theories have been propounded on this subject. 
Some writers think that Pilate ordered Christ to be examined 
under torture, quaestio per tormenta , in order to extort a 
confession from Him. This torture was not intended as a 
preliminary to the death sentence, but was accounted as already 
inflicted when this sentence was pronounced. On the other 
jhand, many commentators, both ancient and modern, believe 
that the scourging was inflicted upon Jesus before the death 
sentence was pronounced in order to assuage the fury of the 
Jews. St. Augustine 1 sees no discrepancy between the accounts 
of the scourging as given by the synoptic evangelists and that 
of St. John, and in his treatise on the Fourth Gospel he says 
regarding the flagellation: hoc Pilatus non ob aliud fecisse 
credendus est , nisi ut ejas injuriis Judaei satiati sufficere sibi ex- 
istimarent, et usque ad ejus mortem saevire desisterent . 2 Ac¬ 
cording to the third theory, the scourging took place after 
Pilate had yielded to the Jews’ demand, and so may be regarded 
as an actual preliminary to the crucifixion. Bynaeus takes this 
view, although he remarks incidentally that this cruel proceed¬ 
ing may have been designed to calm the fury of the Jews. 3 
Langen, too, is of opinion that Pilate intentionally ordered our 
Lord to be scourged as a prelude to His crucifixion. This third 
opinion is probably correct, and is, I think, supported by the 
synoptic accounts. The statements of St. Matthew and St. 
Mark on the one hand, and that of St. John on the other, may 
be harmonized in the following way: Pilate yielded to the Jews’ 
demand by ordering our Lord scourged, this punishment being 
preliminary to crucifixion, but the formal death sentence was 


1 De cons, evang. 3, 36: unde apparet, Matthaeum et Marcum u recapitu- 
lando” istud commemorasse, non quod tunc factum sit, cum eum Pilatus 
jam crucifigendum tradidisset. 

2 In Joann, tract. 116, 1. So also Bede, Knabenbauer, and others. 

8 Bynaeus, III, 4, 5: apparet non obscurum, Jesum Pilati jussu ex trito 
apud Romanos more caesum flagris esse, quoniam tradendus erat ad sup - 
plicium crucis, quamvis Pilatus, antequam cum “ omnino ” traderet, Judae- 
orum animos commovere conatus sit erga insontem. 



184 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

not pronounced until after the scourging, when the procurator’s 
last attempt to save Jesus had failed. 

Some commentators think that our Saviour was scourged 
twice, and that St. Matthew and St. Mark record one scourging, 
and St. John another. Maldonatus 1 and Bynaeus 2 allude to 
this theory. 

The insults and ill treatment offered to Jesus by the Roman 
soldiery. After our Saviour had been scourged He was mocked 
and insulted by the Roman soldiers, just as in the previous night 
His condemnation by the Sanhedrin was followed by mockery 
and abuse on the part of Sanhedrists and servants. We are here 
dealing with another place and with soldiers, some of whom 
were not actively concerned with the flagellation. The four 
soldiers who, according to Pilate’s instructions, had scourged 
our Lord, took Him into the court of the palace, and, as we 
learn from St. Matthew and St. Mark, called together the 
whole band of soldiers. We need not assume that the entire 
cohort of six hundred men was called, but only those who hap¬ 
pened to be present and not on duty. They proceeded, no 
doubt with Pilate’s consent, to insult and ill treat Jesus. 3 

First of all they dragged off our Lord’s outer garment, that 
had been restored to Him after the scourging, and put on Him 
a cloak such as military commanders wore. This cloak was 
longer than that of an ordinary soldier, and was either white 
or purple in color. St. Mark and St. John say that the cloak 
cast round our Lord’s shoulders was purple, but St. Matthew 
calls it scarlet. St. Augustine 4 gives a satisfactory explanation 
of this apparent discrepancy. He says that there was a great 
resemblance between purple and scarlet, and since scarlet was 
used more frequently than purple as a dye, the same garment 
might be described as either purple or scarlet. It is not neces¬ 
sary to assume that two cloaks were used in succession, 5 or, as 
St. Augustine goes on to suggest, that some part of the scarlet 


1 ad Matth. xxvii. 26. 

2 Bynaeus, III, 4, 5. 

3 Leo, Sermon 8 de pass: non jubente sed permittente Pilato. Knaben- 
bauer (ad loc.) lays too much stress upon this arbitrary action on the part 
of the soldiers as an argument in support of his theory that the scourging 
was not intended to be a prelude to the crucifixion, but to assuage the fury 
of the Jews against our Lord. 

4 De cons, evang. 3, 36. 

8 St. Ambrose and St. Hilary. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 185 

cloak was purple. From a very early period purple robes were 
worn by rulers, and the Roman emperors tried to claim for 
themselves the exclusive right to wear this color, as a mark of 
their imperial dignity, hence the soldiers’ action ridiculed the 
claim to royalty attributed to our Lord. Moreover, even in 
remotest times kings and princes wore a diadem as an ornament 
and mark of honor. We hear of diadems used by the Egyptians 
and Persians, and later also by the Romans. A diadem con¬ 
sisted, as its name indicates, 1 of a band of silk or wool worn 
round the head, and after the time of Constantine the Great 
imperial diadems were ornamented with pearls and precious 
stones. Subsequently their place was taken by the crown. In 
the case of Jesus a crown platted by the soldiers of thorns 
represented the diadem. In addition to the grievous insult, He 
suffered intense bodily pain when the thorns were driven by 
rough blows into the skin and flesh. According to tradition the 
crown of thorns was made either of the lotus or of the common 
prickly thorn. The thorn known as spina Christi does not 
grow in, the neighborhood of Jerusalem, therefore Funk favors 
the paliurus aculeatus , though the relics of the Crown of 
Thoms at Treves and Brugge favor the thorn spina Christi. 
The former has pliant branches with many sharp spikes. 

Another mark of kingly authority is the sceptre. It sym¬ 
bolizes power to uphold, protect, direct, or punish, and as such 
it was borne by oriental monarchs and by the later Roman 
emperors. The reed was placed as sceptre in our Lord’s hand 
in mockery of His kingship. Then the soldiers began to do 
Him homage, kneeling before Him, accosting Him in ridicule 
as the King of the Jews, buffeting Him and striking Him 
on the head; and in order to give full expression to their pro¬ 
found contempt, they spat upon Him. Early commentators 
point out that the Roman soldiers were compelled involuntarily 
to bear testimony by their actions to our Lord’s Messianic 
kingship, and to the significance of His work for the salvation 
of men. Moreover, by His marvellous patience, He set an 
example to all His followers, showing them how to overcome 
the sufferings of this world and secure the glory of heaven. 
St. Augustine concludes his account of this episode with the 


1 From diadeiV' to bind round. 



186 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


words: sic implebantur, quae de se praedixerat Christus; sic 
martyres informabantur ad omnia , quae persecutores libuisset 
facere, perferenda; sic paulisper occultata tremenda potentia 
commendabatur prius imitanda patientia; sic regnum, quod de 
hoc mundo non erat, superbum mundum non atrocitate pug - 
nandi, sed patiendi humilitate vincebat; sic illud granum 
multiplicandum seminabatur horribili contumelia, ut mirabili 
pullularet in gloria . 1 


X. Ecce Homo 

John xix. 4-16 


4. Pilate therefore went forth 
again, and saith to them: Behold I 
bring him forth unto you, that you 
may know that I find no cause in 
him. 

5. (Jesus therefore came forth 
bearing the crown of thorns, and the 
purple garment.) And he saith to 
them: Behold the Man. 

6. When the chief priests there¬ 
fore and the servants had seen him, 
they cried out, saying: Crucify him, 
crucify him. Pilate saith to them: 
Take him you, and crucify him: for 
I find no cause in him. 

7. The Jews answered him: We 
have a law; and according to the 
law he ought to die, because he made 
himself the Son of God. 

8. When Pilate therefore had 
heard this saying, he feared the 
more. 

9. And he entered into the hall 
again, and he said to Jesus: Whence 
art thou? But Jesus gave him no 
answer. 

10. Pilate therefore saith to him: 
Speakest thou not to me? knowest 
thou not that I have power to cru¬ 
cify thee, and I have power to re¬ 
lease thee? 


11. Jesus answered; Thou 
shouldst not have any power 
against me, unless it were given thee 
from above. Therefore he that hath 
delivered me to thee, hath the greater 
sin. 

12. And from thenceforth Pilate 
sought to release him. But the Jews 
cried out, saying: If thou release 
this man, thou art not Cesar’s 
friend. For whosoever maketh him¬ 
self a king, speaketh against Cesar. 

13. Now when Pilate had heard 
these words, he brought Jesus forth; 
and sat down in the judgment seat, 
in the place that is called Lithostro- 
tos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha. 

14. And it was the parasceve of 
the pasch, about the sixth hour, and 
he saith to the Jews: Behold your 
king. 

15. But they cried out: Away 
with him, away with him, crucify 
him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I 
crucify your king? The chief priests 
answered: We have no king but 
Cesar. 

16. Then therefore he delivered 
him to them to be crucified. 


After Jesus had been scourged and mocked, Pilate made one 
more attempt to save Him, and, this having failed, pronounced 


In Joann, tract. 116, 1. 




THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 187 

the formal sentence of death. St. John alone records this stage 
of the proceedings and the touching scene of the Ecce Homo, 
which took place outside the Antonia, where Pilate’s tribunal 
stood. The conversation was between Pilate on the one handi 
and the Sanhedrists and court attendants on the other; on this 
occasion the populace seems to have played no active part. 
St. John seems to indicate that Jesus was present only at the 
beginning of the discussion; He was probably afterwards taken 
into some room in the Antonia. 

After He had been mocked by the soldiers in the courtyard, 
Jesus, still wearing the robes in which they had arrayed Him, 
was once more brought before Pilate, whose extraordinary at¬ 
tempt at rescue, and the reason offered for this attempt, show 
plainly that the pitiable condition of our Saviour had produced 
an overwhelming effect even upon the cold-hearted Roman. 
Among the Romans, scourging, mockery, and crucifixion were 
closely connected stages of judicial procedure, the former being 
the usual preliminaries to the barbarous mode of execution. 
Pilate, however, interrupted the ordinary course in order to try 
once more to save our Lord’s life. The fact that the formal 
death sentence had not yet been pronounced made this unusual 
step possible. 

The Sanhedrists and their attendants were assembled in front 
of the Praetorium, awaiting the final verdict, and Pilate went out 
to them, followed by Jesus, who was still wearing the crown of 
thorns upon His head, and the purple cloak. Pilate’s own words 
show that his exhibition of our Lord at this stage of the pro¬ 
ceedings was equivalent to an acknowledgment of His complete 
innocence. The line of argument was the following: Had I 
regarded Jesus as guilty, I should not have interrupted the 
usual course of things, but should have handed Him over to the 
executioners after He had been scourged. It is because I con¬ 
sider Plim innocent that I am bringing Him out, in order to 
renew our discussion for securing His release. It is often as¬ 
sumed that Pilate’s words, “I find no cause in Him,” mean, 
“ I find no reason for condemning Him to death,” but if we 
adhere to the literal sense of the words we must understand 
them to be equivalent to a complete acquittal. 1 This solemn 


1 Jansenius: nullam omnino causatn invenio. 




188 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


testimony to our Lord’s perfect innocence was at the same time 
a severe criticism of Pilate’s previous behavior. 1 When pro¬ 
nouncing our Lord innocent, Pilate hoped that the Sanhedrists 
and their followers would be moved to pity at the pitiable spec¬ 
tacle that He presented, and would be satisfied with the chastise¬ 
ment already inflicted. Jesus came out of the palace and stood, 
“ bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment,” in the 
open space in front of the building, while the procurator, who 
was deeply moved and filled with compassion, introduced Him 
to the merciless Sanhedrists, using the ever memorable words, 
Ecce Homo, behold the man, —• words that convey to us some 
idea of the physically ill-treated but spiritually glorified form 
of the Son of Man. His body was tom by the lashes, His head 
pierced by the thorns, His face disfigured with filth, and with 
His own blood dripping down. Yet, in spite of all this misery, 
His patience, composure, innocence, and divine dignity were 
unmistakable. The Jews then beheld the servant of Yahweh of 
whom Isaias 2 wrote: “ There is no beauty in him nor comeli¬ 
ness, and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that 
we should be desirous of him. Despised and the most abject 
of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity, and 
his look was as it were hidden and despised. Whereupon we 
esteemed him not.” Then were fulfilled the Psalmist’s words: 3 
“ I am a worm and no man; the reproach of men and the out¬ 
cast of the people,” for, when He was scourged and mocked, 
Jesus underwent the utmost shame and suffering. Unknown to 
himself, Pilate uttered a profound truth in saying Ecce Homo, 
for thus he designated as “ man ” this Christ, by whose humilia¬ 
tion and torture men were to be raised to the heights of heav¬ 
enly bliss. 4 

Pilate hoped that the Sanhedrists would be moved to pity at 
the sight of our Saviour, thus cruelly disfigured, and that they 
would be satisfied with the punishment already inflicted upon 
Him, but he was disappointed. Their hearts were so thor¬ 
oughly hardened as to be incapable of any compassion, and 
their diabolical hatred 5 only made them demand our Lord’s 

1 Toletus: in se ipsum sententiam fert, qui in innocentem tarn crudeliter 
saevierit. 

2 liii. 2, 3. 8 Ps. xxi. 7. 

4 Toletus: merito ecce homo dicitur, qui solus potuit hominem Uberare. 

6 Toletus: Pilotus nesciebat, illos diabolxco spiritu agitatos esse. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 189 

execution more eagerly. According to St. Augustine, Pilate, 
when he said Ecce Homo, intended to convey to the Jews the 
idea fervet ignominia, friges cat invidia, but their action showed 
non frigescit ( invidia ) inardescit potius et increscit. It is 
generally assumed that our Lord's death was demanded in the 
first instance only by the Sanhedrists and their attendants, but 
subsequently the mass of the people, silent at first, joined in 
the outcry, being influenced by the attitude of their leaders. 
There is not much ground for this assumption, especially as 
St. John, in speaking of an earlier stage of the proceedings, 1 
states explicitly that the people made common cause with their 
rulers, and makes no further mention here. 

In reply to the Sanhedrists’ impetuous demand, Pilate said, 
“ Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him.” 
In order rightly to interpret this utterance, we must bear in 
mind that a death sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrin re¬ 
quired the procurator’s confirmation before it could be validly 
carried out, and also that crucifixion was a punishment foreign 
to the Jewish criminal procedure. When these facts are taken 
into account we shall understand that Pilate expressed not only 
the greatest abhorrence of the barbarity of the Jews in not 
being satisfied with the punishment already inflicted, but also 
great indignation at their audacity in trying to make him pro¬ 
nounce an unjust sentence. Far from yielding to their demand, 
he refused it with contempt and decision. He meant to say: 
I for my part reject your demand to crucify Jesus, because it 
would be a crime committed against an innocent man. 2 3 * 

Since to some commentators a decided and contemptuous refusal seemed 
improbable on the part of a Roman procurator like the weak, avaricious, and 
unjust Pilate, who had so much reason for fearing the Jews, his expression 
has been regarded as a concession to his opponents, and it has been regarded 
as proof that, at the time of our Lord, the Sanhedrin possessed unrestricted 
powers of life and death. 8 

The argument that no Roman governor would have used such contemptu¬ 
ous language, as is ascribed to Pilate, has not much weight, for a weak man, 
with not much determination, would be just the one to forget the responsi¬ 
bilities of his official position. Moreover, many instances occur in history 
of imprudent action at critical moments even on the part of clever states¬ 
men. There are two reasons for not regarding Pilate’s words as a Conces- 


1 xviii. 40. 

2 Jansenius: est non concedentis , sed horrentis crimen. 

3 Toletus: sunt verba populi tuniultum timentis, furoremque cohibere 

volentis. 



I 9 0 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

sion to the Jews. As we have already seen (p. 161), the Sanhedrin did not 
possess unrestricted powers of life and death at that time, and, even if it 
had possessed them, it could not have condemned Jesus to be crucified, be¬ 
cause crucifixion was a Roman, and not a Jewish, mode of execution. 

Jesus is charged with blasphemy. All previous attempts on 
part of the Sanhedrin having failed to obtain a verdict of 
crucifixion against Jesus, either for treason or for inciting the 
people to rebellion, Plis enemies devised a different means of 
attaining their end. They approached Pilate and made the 
definite statement, “ We have a law; and according to the law 
he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. ,, 
St. Augustine 1 states very clearly that the Jews now adopted 
another attitude and brought forward a new charge. Hitherto 
they had accused Jesus of being a political agitator, now they 
charged Him with a religious offence, punishable according to 
the law of Moses. This sudden change was well calculated to 
embarrass the procurator. Blasphemy was a crime that he had 
to punish with death, unless he wished to come into direct 
conflict with the Jewish law. 

The charge of blasphemy was based upon our Lord’s own utterances, 
both during His public ministry 2 * and at His trial. The Sanhedrists, who in¬ 
sisted upon regarding Jesus as merely a human being, considered some of 
His speeches blasphemous, and demanded His death, in accordance with the 
law: “ He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die. All 
the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger.” 8 Al¬ 
though stoning to death was the legal punishment for blasphemy, the San¬ 
hedrists merely said, “ He ought to die,” because from the outset they had 
determined that Jesus should be crucified, and they would not abandon this 
design even when forced to substitute a religious for the previous political 
accusation. 4 * They seem to have argued as follows: We are speaking of the 
religious offence of blasphemy, and are guided by the Mosaic law in investi¬ 
gating whether this offence has been committed or not. Since we, the 
qualified exponents of the law, believe Jesus to be guilty of blasphemy, you, 
Pilate, cannot avoid condemning Him to death without voluntarily coming 
into conflict with the law of Moses. In order fully to realize the significance 
of the Sanhedrists’ doings, we must remember that our Saviour Himself 
supplied His adversaries with evidence from the Scriptures showing that, 
according to the Old Testament revelation, the Messiah was the Son of God.’ 


Tract, in Joanm 16, 3* ecce altera invidia. Parva quippe ilia zndebatur, 
velut affectatae illicito ausu regiae potestatis, et tamen neutrum sibi Jesus 
mendacitur usurpavit; sed utrumque verum est, et unigenitus est Dei filius 
et rex ab eo constitutus super Sion montem sanctum ejus. 

2 Compare John v. 17; x. 30. 

8 Lev. xxiv. 16. 

4 Toletus: non exprimunt legis poenam, quia non lapidari, sed crucifigi 

eum cupiebant. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 191 

This statement reduced His enemies to silence, nor could they deny the 
miracles which He wrought in testimony that He was the Son of God. With 
regard to the charge of blasphemy Bynaeus says: latet daemoniaca calumnia, 
verum enitn erat, se filium Dei praedicasse, sed tamen Christus miris open- 
bus et divinis virtutibus propheticisque testimoniis id confirmaverat . . . 
sat rent nude omissis testimoniis et argumentis proponunt . 1 

When the Sanhedrists charged Jesus with making Himself 
the Son of God, Pilate, already embarrassed, was plunged into 
still greater difficulty and confusion. The pagans believed some 
persons to be sons of their gods, 2 and Pilate no doubt put the 
pagan interpretation upon the Sanhedrists’ words, but, although 
he was convinced of our Lord’s innocence, he could not but 
fear that further charges would be brought against Him. With 
a view to obtaining information on this point, Pilate withdrew 
into the palace, whither Jesus seems already to have been taken. 
Some commentators suppose that Pilate took our Lord with 
Him into the Praetorium. He eagerly began to question Jesus, 
saying, “ Whence ’art thou?” This meant not “where wast 
thou bom ? ” but “ what was thy parentage ? art thou of divine 
or human origin?” To this question our Lord made no an¬ 
swer. Several reasons for this silence have been suggested. 
Some think that He refrained from speaking because Pilate as 
judge needed no reply, being in a position to convince himself 
otherwise of our Lord’s innocence. Others suppose Pilate to 
have been unworthy to receive an answer, and incapable of 
understanding Christ’s claim to be the Son of God. Others 
again believe that Jesus was silent because He did not intend 
to induce Pilate to release Him, but was prepared to die for the 
salvation of mankind. 3 4 St. Augustine sees in Christ’s silence 
before the Jewish and Roman tribunals the fulfillment of the 
prophecy, in which Isaias compares the Messiah with a lamb 
led to the slaughter. He concludes his discussion of the pas¬ 
sage with the following words: cum ergo judicaretur, ubicunque 
non aperuit os suum, sicut agnus non aperuit; i.e., non sicut 
male sibi conscius, qui de peccatis convincebatur suis, sed sicu t 
mansuetus, qui pro peccatis immolabatur alieni st 

1 III, 4, 21. 

2 Toletus: Pilatus multitudini deorum gentium assuefactus. . . . Chris¬ 
tum quamvis hominem dei alicujus filium esse suspicatus est. Compare 
Acts xiv. 10. 

3 Bynaeus, III, 4, 24; Toletus ad loc. 

4 Tract, in Joann. 116, 4. 



i 9 2 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Pilate, being judge and procurator, was deeply offended at 
this silence, and it was in order to inspire our Lord with awe 
rather than with confidence that he referred to his own power 
and authority, which he would not let be ignored with impunity. 
The words, “ Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify 
thee, and I have power to release thee?” are the utterance of 
an irresponsible tyrant 1 who pronounces the condemnation of 
his own action, 2 and not of a judge guided by the principles 
of justice and equity. 

Then at last our Lord opened His lips to show how vain was 
Pilate’s arrogant assertion, and how great the guilt of those 
who made unjust and arbitrary use of their power. Jesus 
solemnly declared that Pilate could have no authority over Him 
unless it were given him from above. These words are gener¬ 
ally understood as referring to the divinely derived 3 power that 
Pilate possessed as procurator, in virtue of which he had the 
right, and even the obligation, to investigate our Lord’s case 
at his tribunal. Other commentators, 4 however, think that Jesus 
referred, not to Pilate’s official authority, but to God’s ordi¬ 
nance and permission which formed part of His scheme for 
man’s salvation. According to this ordinance the God-Man, 
who was subject to no authority, was nevertheless, in order to 
effect our redemption, brought before Pilate and sentenced to 
death. The possession of this power emanated from God; its 
employment for the condemnation of Jesus was on Pilate’s 
part an abuse of it, permitted by God. 5 

Having uttered this protest, Jesus added, “Therefore he that 
hath delivered me to thee hath the greater sin.” The meaning 
is clear — the sin committed by the Jews in condemning Jesus 
and handing Him over to Pilate was greater than that com¬ 
mitted by the procurator in sentencing Him to death. It is, 
however, difficult to see the connection between these and the 
preceding words. The following explanation, taken from St. 
Augustine, is probably correct. Our Lord’s meaning was: pre- 

1 Jansenius: spirant haec verba tyrannidem. 

2 Ambros.: tua, Pilate, voce constringeris, tua damnaris sententia, pro 
potestate igitur non aequitate crucifigendum Dominum tradidisti. 

8 Rom. xiii. i. 

4 Toletus and Jansenius. 

6 Toletus: quaeritur, quo modo “datum” sit, num permissions an con¬ 
cessionst per modum concessions respectu potestatis in se, permissions 
respectu usus potestatis. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 193 

cisely because by divine ordinance and permission you are my 
judge, if you sentence me to death through fear of the Jews, 
your sin is less than theirs, for they handed me over to you 
from motives of malice, hatred, and envy . 1 The Jews incurred 
the greater guilt, because our Lord had most plainly revealed 
Himself to them as the Son of God, and had substantiated His 
claim to be regarded as such by them. 

Pilate’s last attempt to save our Lord’s Life. After, and in 
consequence of, this last conversation with Jesus, Pilate made 
a fresh but unsuccessful attempt to save Him. St. John gives 
no details of this attempt, but we can see, from the previous 
proceedings, why it was made. Our Lord’s statement, that it 
was only through a special dispensation that Pilate had author¬ 
ity over Him, certainly produced some effect. When our 
Saviour, in His deep humiliation and intense suffering, declared 
that Pilate would have to answer for the misuse of the authority 
entrusted to him, the procurator realized that he would incur 
a heavy responsibility if he definitely sentenced Jesus to death . 2 
The Jews, however, frustrated Pilate’s last efforts, for they 
adopted a line of action certain to attain their end, thus showing 
how well they understood to use Pilate’s weakness for their 
own purposes. They promptly assigned a political significance 
to our Lord’s testimony that He was the Son of God, by inter¬ 
preting it in the light of their own expectations regarding the 
Messiah, and so they used the ominous words, “If thou release 
this man, thou art not Cesar’s friend.” Under the Roman 
emperors “Cesar’s friend” was a title of honor given to the 
most trusty counsellors and highest officials in the provinces . 3 

The statement, “Thou art not Cesar’s friend,” was far more significant 
than at first sight it appears to be. It conveys a charge of disloyalty toward 
the emperor, coupled with a threat of an accusation of treason. 4 This threat 
could not be disregarded, for we know from contemporary writers that Tibe- 


1 August. Tract, in Joann. 116, 5: ille quippe me tuae potestati tradidit 
“ invidendo,” tu vero eandem potestatem in me exercitnrus se “ metuendo .” 
Nec timendo quidem, praesertim innocentem, homo hominem debet occi- 
dere; sed tamen id zelando facere multo magis malum est quam timendo. 
The * same interpretation is given by Chrysostom, Horn. 83; Thomas; 
Bynaeus, III, 4, 26, and others. 

2 Toletus: cognovit inique esse traditum, cognovit etiam se inique actu- 
rum, si inique traditum damnaret. 

3 The title was given to all those qualified to attend court functions. 

4 Jansenius: plus significant quam dicunt, taciteque accusationem per- 
fidiae apud Caesarem minantur. 



194 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


rius was an extremely jealous and suspicious ruler, who not only enforced 
the laws of treason very strictly, but considered many minor offences trea¬ 
sonable. 1 Moreover, Pilate’s cruelty and injustice had already earned for 
him a bad reputation. 2 * 

The covert threat was not without effect upon the weak and guilty pro¬ 
curator. Thenceforth he disregarded our Lord’s innocence, upon which he 
had hitherto laid so much stress, and showed himself anxious to curry favor 
with the Jews, in order to safeguard his own position. 8 But while Pontius 
Pilate surrendered Jesus to the Jews, he did not succeed in saving himself, 
as was related in a previous chapter. 

Time and place of our Lord’s condemnation. In accordance 
with divine dispensation, Jesus was not formally and definitely 
sentenced to death until the most convincing evidence of His 
innocence had been brought forward, and until it was made 
positively evident that the real reasons for His condemnation 
were the implacable hatred of the Jews and Pilate’s pusillanim¬ 
ity. Roman judicial procedure required the judge to sit in the 
judgment seat while pronouncing sentence. Pilate therefore 
went up to the seat, and there followed a scene fraught with 
importance to the human race. The God-Man was condemned 
to die, in order that men, who had been doomed to spiritual 
death, might have life. This is the reason why the evangelist 
has preserved for us both the Hebrew and the Greek names of 
the spot where the judgment seat stood. It was called “ Gab- 
batha,” because it was raised somewhat above the level, and 
“ Lithostrotos,” because it was paved with stones. It was not 
within the Temple precincts, but was a slight elevation in front 
of the Antonia. At the present day it is still pointed out in the 
Turkish barracks erected on this place. 4 * * * In order to emphasize 
the importance of the event, St. John records with great pre¬ 
cision the day and hour when our Lord was condemned. “ It 
was the parasceve of the pasch,” the day of preparation in¬ 
cluded in the Paschal season, Friday, the 15th of the month 
Nisan, “about the sixth hour,” i.e., probably between six and 
seven in the morning. 


1 Tacitus, Ann. I, 71, 73, 74; III, 38. Suetonius and Tiberius, 56. 

2 Flav. Jos. Ant. xviii. 4, 1; B. J. II, 9, 3, 4; Tacitus, Ann. XV, 44. 

8 Toletus: quern timor innocentiae et divinitatis Christi ab ejus damna¬ 
tione hucusque averterant et retraxerant, mundanus timor impellit. 

4 According to Mommert (/. c. pp. 82-104) the tribunal was not on the 

elevation, but at the foot of the rock on which the Antonia stood, close to 

the old temple hill in the district called el Wad. Since 1854 this spot has 

belonged to the Uniate Armenians. 



THE JEWISH AND GENTILE TRIBUNALS 195 

There are difficulties in both statements, and various attempts have been 
made to solve them. HapacrKewfi rov ird<rx <* as the designation of a day of 
the week is frequently explained thus: It was the day of preparation before 
the first day of the Pasch. If this be correct, Christ was condemned and 
crucified on the eve of the Jewish Pasch, and in that case either He antici¬ 
pated the Paschal supper, or the Jews postponed it by a day. Against this 
interpretation is the fact that ir apaaicevif] (parasceve) in the New Testament 
is never used of the eve of a festival, but always of the day before the Sab¬ 
bath, viz., Friday. Moreover, it is pointed out that in the New Testament, 
and especially in St. John, Trdax a designates the whole festival, and not ex¬ 
clusively the great day of the feast, the 15th of Nisan. In this case, when 
St. John speaks of the parasceve of the Pasch, he is referring to the Friday 
within the Paschal season. In the year of the crucifixion this Friday coin¬ 
cided with the great day of the feast. 

It is more difficult to reconcile St. John’s statement, that Jesus was sen¬ 
tenced to death about the sixth hour, with St. Mark’s words 1 that Pie was 
crucified at the third hour. From the earliest times down to the present 
day attempts have been made to overcome the discrepancy. 2 We must reject 
the suggestion that in one or other of the gospels there is a textual mistake, 
for critical examination proves conclusively that St. Mark wrote the third 
and St. John the sixth hour. St. Augustine discusses this point in his work 
on the consensus of the evangelists 8 as well as in his treatise on St. John’s 
gospel. 4 In the former work he makes the following attempt to harmonize 
the two statements: hora tertia crucifixus est Dominus Unguis Judaeorum, 
hora sexta manibus militum. In the second work he suggests that the sixth 
hour mentioned by St. John should be reckoned from the ninth hour of the 
night (3 a.m.), when Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. He 
finds ground for this suggestion in the fact that St. John introduces his 
statement of time by the words “ it was the parasceve of the Pasch.” St. 
Augustine refers to St. Paul’s, expression, “ Christ our Pasch, 5 6 * and sees in 
the word “ Pasch ” here an allusion to Christ, of whom the Paschal lamb was 
a type. He argues thus: At the ninth hour (3 a.m.) began the preparation 
of the Paschal lamb, when Christ was condemned by the .Sanhedrin, and at 
the sixth hour after this condemnation (i.e., at 9 a.m.), this preparation was 
completed by the procurator’s sentence and the crucifixion that followed it. 
St. Augustine’s first suggestion has been accepted by St. Bede and some 
later commentators, 8 as well as by Roth, a recent writer, who interprets St. 
Mark’s expression “ they crucified him ” in a wide sense, making it include 
the scourging and the way of the cross, besides the actual crucifixion. Roth 
harmonizes the account thus: According to St. Mark the scourging, which 
was the first stage of the crucifixion, took place at the third hour, and, ac¬ 
cording to St. John, it was about the sixth hour (noon) that Jesus was for¬ 
mally sentenced to death and crucified. 

At the period when the gospels were written, the Roman method of reck¬ 
oning time from midnight onwards was in use in Asia Minor, and conse¬ 
quently many modern commentators assume that, when St. John mentions 
the sixth hour, we must understand him to mean 6 a.m. As a rule, St. John 
follows the Jewish method, but it is thought that here he may have adopted 
the Roman reckoning, because he was recording a public Roman trial. 

1 xv. 25. 2 Compare Bynaeus, III, 4, 37-44. 8 Be cons, evang. 3, 41 seqq. 

4 Tract, in Joann. 117, 1, 2. 8 1 ^ 0I \ V *, 7 ' . ,. 

6 Theophylact, Jacobus Lydius ( apud Bynaeus, III, 4, 40), Morinus: dis- 

sertatio de horis salvificis pass. J. Chr. D. N. 




196 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Moreover, his use of the word “ about ” (&s) may justify us in thinking that 
he is alluding to the period between 6 and 7 a.m. If this be correct, it was 
about 6 o’clock, or between 6 and 7 in the morning, when Pilate sat down 
in the judgment seat to make his last attempt to save our Lord, and, when 
that attempt failed, to pronounce sentence of death, and about g a.m., or at 
the third hour, according to the Hebrew reckoning, the execution of the 
death sentence began to take place. Against this theory it may be urged 
that it would hardly have been possible for the proceedings before Pilate and 
the sending of Jesus to Herod to have taken place so early in the day. If, 
however, we bear in mind that trials before the Roman tribunal began at a 
very early hour, and that Pilate had every reason for hurrying on this case, 
because great crowds had assembled to celebrate the festival, we shall see 
that this attempt to overcome the difficulty is not to be hastily rejected. 
Schegg follows Toletus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, in thinking that, 
when St. Mark speaks of the third hour, he refers not to a definite point of 
time, but to the period between g a.m. and noon, for the Jews divided the 
day into quarters. In this way it is easy to reconcile St. Mark’s statement 
with that of St. John, for “ about the sixth hour ” may very well be under¬ 
stood as designating the hour between n a.m. and noon. If this be cor¬ 
rect, we may assume that Jesus was crucified between g a.m. and noon (St. 
Mark), after, as stated by St. John, He had been condemned to death about 
the sixth hour, i.e., between n and 12 o’clock. Knabenbauer holds a similar 
opinion, and thinks that the sixth hour mentioned by St. John is undoubtedly 
the sixth hour after sunrise, i.e., noon, according to our reckoning. 

The Sanhedrin had disregarded the supreme revelation regarding the 
promised Messiah, and now they abandoned the Messiah Himself as well as 
the theocratic position of the Jews as the chosen people, for they cried, “ W*e 
have no king but Cesar.” With this cry they secured our Lord’s con¬ 
demnation, and at the same time, unintentionally and involuntarily, deter¬ 
mined their own fate. 

One further point requires discussion: Was Jesus condemned to‘death 
according to the Roman or the Jewish law? A survey of the judicial pro¬ 
ceedings will suggest the answer to this question. At the night and morn¬ 
ing sessions of the Sanhedrin Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, in 
accordance with the Law of Moses. Before Pilate the Jews accused Him of 
inciting the people to rebellion, and of being hostile to the Roman govern¬ 
ment. The procurator investigated these charges, and declared our Lord to 
be perfectly innocent. His adversaries, being thus foiled, shifted their 
ground and demanded His execution because He had been found guilty of 
blasphemy according to the Mosaic law. Taking Christ’s guilt for proved, 
they called upon Pilate to pronounce the death sentence. By dint of 
threatening the procurator, who was a weak man, and burdened with an 
uneasy conscience, the Sanhedrists succeeded in forcing him to accede to 
their request, and to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, a Roman mode of 
execution. 

With regard to the judicial proceedings against our Lord, it is clear that 
they assumed a religious-political form. Jesus is seen as the victim of 
Jewish fanatics, to whom the Roman procurator abandoned Him, partly 
from political considerations and partly through fear of losing his own 
position. This was the real underlying reason, concealed under a sem¬ 
blance of regular procedure. Hence Christ’s death was a religious-political 
murder, procured by an abuse of a court of law, and by intimidation of a 
weak and corrupt judge. 


SECTION V 

THE CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL OF CHRIST 


In this section we deal with the following subjects: 

1. The Way of the Cross, recorded by all the evangelists, 
most briefly by St. John, most fully by St. Luke. 

2. The Crucifixion of Jesus, recorded by all the four evan¬ 
gelists, although each account contains special features, that 
are discussed separately. 

3. Miraculous events following our Lord’s death. These 
are mentioned only by the synoptic writers, and particularly by 
St. Matthew. 

4. Our Lord’s side is pierced with a lance. St. John alone 
records this occurrence. 

5. The Burial of our Lord, recorded by all the evangelists. 

6. The tomb is sealed and a watch is set; recorded only by 
St. Matthew. 


I. The Way of the Cross 


Matthew xxvii. 31-34 

31. And after they had mocked 
him, they took off the cloak from 
him, and put on him his own gar¬ 
ments, and led him away to crucify 
him. 

32. And going out they found a 
man of Cyrene, named Simon: him 
they forced to take up his cross. 

33. And they came to the place 
that is called Golgotha, which is the 
place of Calvary. 

34. And they gave him wine to 
drink, mingled with gall. And 
when he had tasted he would not 
drink. 


Mark xv. 20-23 

20. And after they had mocked 
him, they took off the purple from 
him, and put his own garments 
on him, and they led him out to 
crucify him. 

21. And they forced one Simon a 
Cyrenian who passed by, coming out 
of the country, the father of Alex¬ 
ander and of Rufus, to take up his 
cross. 

22. And they bring him into the 
place called Golgotha, which being 
interpreted is, the place of Calvary. 

23. And they gave him to drink 
wine mingled with myrrh; but he 
took it not. 



i 9 8 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Luke xxiii. 26-32 

26. And as they led him away, 
they laid hold of one Simon of Cy- 
rene, coming from the country; and 
they laid the cross on him to carry 
after Jesus. 

27. And there followed him a 
great multitude of people, and of 
women who bewailed and lamented 
him. 

28. But Jesus turning to them 
said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep 
not over me, but weep for your¬ 
selves, and for your children. 

29. For behold the days shall 
come, wherein they will say: Blessed 
are the barren, and the wombs that 
have not borne, and the paps that 
have not given suck. 

30. Then shall they begin to say 
to the mountains: Fall upon us: 
and to the hills: Cover us. 

31. For if in the green wood they 
do these things, what shall be done 
in the dry? 

32. And there were also two 
other malefactors led with him to 
be put to death. 

The way to the place of execution. The shortest account of 
this episode is given by St. John, the longest by St. Luke. Tra¬ 
dition has preserved for us the exact route of the Saviour’s 
via dolorosa, and the precise spots at which the various events 
in its course took place. Further details, that appear to be 
trustworthy, are furnished by the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, 
to supplement the evangelists’ scanty accounts. 1 

When a condemned criminal was taken to execution, it was 
usual to conduct him along busy streets, in order to add to his 
degradation and to strike fear into the minds of the people. 
We read in Dio Cassius 2 that a slave sentenced to death was 
forced to walk across the forum wearing a tablet on which his 
offence was inscribed. Consequently, on His way to execution 
our Lord passed through the lower part of the city, along what 
is now called the Via Dolorosa. 3 The eastern portion of the 

1 Acta Pilati, B. X. 1-4; compare Tisch. Evang. apocr., ed. altera, 302- 

306. 

3 54 , 3 - 

* Compare Thurston, The Stations of the Cross, 1906. The level of the 


John xix. 10-17 

16. . . . And they took Jesus and 
led him forth. 

17. And bearing his own cross he 
went forth to that place which is 
called Calvary, but in Hebrew Gol¬ 
gotha. 




CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


199 


street, as far as its junction with the road from Dtaiascus on 
the north, is also known as Taril Bab Sitti Maryam, i.e., the 
street of Our Lady Mary, and its continuation is the Tarik el 
Alam, the way of sorrows. The first four stations are situ¬ 
ated in the former street, the next five in the latter, and the last 
five in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 

Our Lord’s Way of the Cross began at the Fortress Antonia, on the 
northwest corner of the Temple hill, and thence He passed westward through 
the old lower city, leaving the town at the so-called Aphren Gate, and thence 
proceeding to the place of execution. According to Mommert, who, as has 
already been said, thinks that Pilate’s judgment seat was at the foot of the 
hill where the fortress stood, our Lord started from the bottom, not the top 
of the hill. As early as the thirteenth century the Franciscans marked out 
the various stages of the Via Dolorosa, and Mommert regards their identi¬ 
fication of the sites on the whole as accurate, though he thinks the first four 
stations ought to be placed nearer together. Those of the commentators 
who believe that the judgment seat was on Mount Sion, in front of the 
royal palace, reckon that the Way of the Cross began at that point. Its 
total length was about a thousand paces. Any attempt to fix the hour at 
which our Lord started on His way to Calvary must depend upon the man¬ 
ner in which we reconcile the statement of St. Mark and St. John regard¬ 
ing the time of his condemnation. This subject was discussed in the 
previous section. According to one solution of the difficulty our Saviour 
set out about q a.m.; according to the other, between 11 and 12 ; it is certain 
that by noon He was hanging on the cross. Both among the Jews * 1 and the 
Romans 2 it was usual for executions to take place outside a city, at some 
distance from human habitations. The four evangelists and the writer of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 12, 13) all agree in saying that our Lord 
was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. 

Crucifixion was the most severe, cruel, and shameful form of execution, 
and was carried out by Roman soldiers under the direction of a centurion, 
who was called for that reason the exactor mortis. 3 The evangelists tell us 
that also our Lord was crucified by Roman soldiers at whose head was a 
centurion, and we may reasonably assume that the same soldiers who had 
scourged and then mocked Him in the courtyard at the Praetorium accom¬ 
panied Him on His way to execution. 4 The actual crucifixion was performed 
by four soldiers, who afterwards remained on guard. The special precau¬ 
tions taken at our Lord’s arrest justify the assumption that a considerable 
number of soldiers escorted Him to Golgotha. 

Jesus bearing His cross. A malefactor, condemned to be cru¬ 
cified, was forced to carry his own cross to the place of execu¬ 
tion, and this means the whole cross, not only the transverse 

Jerusalem streets is now considerably higher than what it was in our Lord’s 

time. . * .. 0 

1 Lev. xxiv. 14; Num. xv. 351 3 Kings xxi. 10; Acts vn. 58. 

2 Tacitus, Ann. xv. 44. 

s Tacitus, Ann. iii. 14. 

4 Acta Pilati, X, 2. 



200 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


beam . 1 Accordingly, after the gorgeous robe that He had 
worn when mocked had been removed and His own garments 
restored, the cross was laid upon our Lord’s shoulders. In all 
probability His hands were, according to the usual custom, 
bound with ropes to the upright of the cross. We read in the 
Acts of Pilate that Jesus was led forth with His hands bound, 
and with the crown of thorns upon His head . 2 

Then a procession was formed; at the head marched the cen¬ 
turion with a number of soldiers, then followed our Lord, with 
Him two thieves who were also to be crucified. To the right 
and left of those about to die walked the four soldiers who were 
to carry out the death sentence, and other soldiers brought up 
the rear. Behind these came our Lord’s friends, to whom allu¬ 
sion will be made later on. 

St. John alone states explicitly that Jesus carried His cross, 
and the word that he employs indicates complete willingness on 
our Lord’s part , 3 for He was eager to accomplish the work of 
redemption and to secure the salvation of mankind. On the 
words, “ bearing His own cross He went forth,” St. Augustine 
remarks: grande spectaculum; sed si spectet impietas, grande 
ludibrium; si pietas, grande mysterium; si spectet impietas, 
grande ignominiae documentum; si pietas, grande fidei muni - 
mentum; si spectet impietas, ridet regem pro virga regni lignum 
sui portare supplicii; si pietas, videt regem bajulantem lignum 
ad semetipsum figendum, quod fixurus erat etiam in frontibus 
regum; in eo spernendus oculis impiorum, in quo erant gloria- 
tura cor da sanctorum. The excessive agony of mind and body 
that He had undergone had, however, so much exhausted our 
Lord that, after carrying the cross for a short distance He 
fell under its weight. The Acts of Pilate 4 tell us that He car¬ 
ried the cross as far as the city gate, where it was taken from 
Him because, owing to its weight and the blows that He had 
received, He could go no farther, and the Jews opposed any 
postponement of the execution. Later tradition records that 
our Lord fell at the entrance of the street now, known as the 
Via Dolorosa. The exact place is marked with a stone on which 


1 Acta Pilati, X. 

2 B. X. 2 : rbv (popovvra rbv ffre<pavov rov atc&vdivov /cat ras xet'pas bedenevov, 

8 The same verb occurs in the Acta Pilati, B. X. i. 

* B. X. i. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


201 


is a slight cavity, said to have been produced by the touch 
of His hand. This is the lowest point of the city, and here 
begins a steep ascent. A very precise account of the traditions 
regarding the events on our Lord’s way to Calvary is given by 
Christian Adrichem (Adrichomius), a German theologian, who 
visited the Holy Land in the sixteenth century. 1 

Simon of Cyrene. When the cross was taken from our Lord’s 
shoulders, it was laid on those of Simon of Cyrene, whom they 
forced to carry it after Him. Simon’s Hebrew name might 
show him to have been a Jew by birth, and we know from 
Flavius Josephus that many Jews lived in Cyrene, and they even 
had a synagogue of their own in Jerusalem at the time of our 
Lord. 2 However, according to Belser, Simon of Cyrene was 
not a Jew but a heathen, as the names of his children, Alexan¬ 
der and Rufus, indicate. He happened to come at the time 
when our Lord was led out, ax’ aypov (Mark xv. 21 and Luke 
xxiii. 26), which could not be understood as the Vulgate gives 
it, de villa, but has to be taken from “fieldwork,” there¬ 
fore he was a poor laborer and a plebeian. He was forced, 
dyya pevovartv (Mark xv. 21) and rjyyapevaav (Matthew xxvii. 
32), to carry the cross, instead of one of the crowd, just be¬ 
cause he was no Jew, so that it might be taken from our Lord, 
who, as a Jew, could not carry a burden without breaking the 
Sabbath law. So the question whether Simon was a Jew or 
a Gentile is not altogether settled. Simon was a wealthy man, 
with property near Jerusalem. Being on his way from his 
farm to the Temple, he met the procession escorting Jesus to 
Calvary, and was unceremoniously forced, either by the sol¬ 
diers or by the Jews, 3 to carry the cross. St. Mark and St. 
Luke say that Simon was coming from the country, and this 
is frequently taken to mean that he was coming from work in 
the fields. Thence it is further deduced that the crucifixion 
took place on a working day, viz., on the day before the 
Paschal festival. There is, however, no reason at all for in¬ 
ferring from the gospel narrative that Simon was coming from 
work in the fields. 

Simon’s task was most degrading in the eyes of both Jews and Romans, 
but he soon received his reward. On a previous occasion Christ had 


1 Theatrum terrae sanctae. Cologne, 1590. 

• Acta Pilati, X, 1. 


2 Acts vi. 9. 



202 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


vaguely foretold His own way of the cross/ and had said that none could 
be worthy of Him who did not take up his cross and follow Him. Simon 
of Cyrene was the first who literally carried the cross after our Lord; he 
bore it indeed under compulsion and at first with feelings of deep indigna¬ 
tion, but the virtue that followed from the cross over the human race, 
drawing all men to Christ, 2 soon converted Simon and made him a true fol¬ 
lower of our crucified Lord. According to tradition he became a Christian, 
and was put to death when bishop of Bostra in Arabia.* * St. Mark says that 
he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, who were probably members of 
the Christian Church for which the evangelist primarily wrote; at any rate, 
they were well-known men, and Rufus may be identified with the Rufus 
mentioned by St. Paul in Romans xvi. 13. The mother of this Rufus, who 
was probably the wife of Simon of Cyrene, is called by St. Paul his own 
mother; no doubt she treated the apostle with the care and affection of a 
mother. The earliest commentators agree in regarding it as clear from the 
synoptic gospels that Simon carried the whole cross, and did not merely sup¬ 
port the lower part of it. The Fathers and recent writers express the same 
opinion, and on a very ancient mosaic in San Apollinare Nuovo at Ravenna a 
man is depicted walking behind our Saviour and carrying His cross. On 
the other hand, on a miniature in the Cambridge Codex the weight of the 
cross seems to be shared by our Lord and Simon, and from the eleventh cen¬ 
tury onward most artists have represented this joint carrying of the burden. 

The women of Jerusalem. St. Luke alone tells us that the 
procession was followed by a multitude of people and many 
women who bewailed and lamented Jesus. Our Lord’s form 
of address shows that they were chiefly women of Jerusalem, 
but this is no reason for excluding from their number Our Lady 
and the women of Galilee, some of whom stood afterwards at 
the foot of the cross, and others at a little distance from it. In 
the Acts of Pilate 4 explicit mention is made of St. John, Our 
Lady, Martha, ilary Magdalen, and Salome, and we read that 
other women followed them. 

Many commentators think that most of the women had gone 
out merely from motives of curiosity, and that their cries of 
sorrow were nothing but the expression of a very natural sym¬ 
pathy with the lot of an unhappy man, no matter whether they 
regarded him as innocent or guilty. St. Luke, however, says 
that they bewailed and lamented Jesus, and from this statement 
and the fact of our Lord’s addressing them, we may infer that 
they had a worthier reason for their grief, and mourned be¬ 
cause they knew Him to be innocent, because they had received 
many benefits from Him, and because they had at least a pre¬ 
sentiment that He was the Messiah. Turning to these women, 

1 Matthew x. 38. 3 John xii. 32. 

* Kirchenlexikon. 4 B. X. 2. 




CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


203 


and heedless of the sorrowful end awaiting Him, Jesus indicated 
with deep emotion, and sympathy the terrible punishment which 
the murder of the Messiah would bring down upon the Holy 
City and its inhabitants. “Weep not over me,” He said, for 
it was of His own free will that He was going to die, and His 
path of suffering, shameful as it was, led to victory and triumph 
over the powers of darkness. “ Weep for yourselves and your 
children,” for days of misery and oppression are at hand. The 
solemn form of address, “ Daughters of Jerusalem,” shows that 
our Saviour had in view the terrible visitation impending over 
the chosen people. In words quoted from the prophet Osee 1 
Jesus described the awful despair that would come upon the 
Jews when God began to chastise them; it would, He said, be 
so great that men would long for death to release them from it. 
The fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded by Josephus in the 
fifth and sixth books of the Jewish Wars. As the reason for 
foretelling the chastisement our Lord said: “If in the green 
wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry ? ” i.e., 
if the innocent Son of Man has to endure so grievous and 
shameful a lot, what will be done to the sinners who are crown¬ 
ing their impiety by the murder of the Messiah? Yet, the 
severe punishment fell only upon those who deliberately per¬ 
sisted in being dry wood. Those who became faithful followers 
of Christ were transformed into green and fruitful wood, by 
virtue of the life proceeding from the true Vine, Christ Him¬ 
self . 2 Because this expression was sanctified by our Lord’s own 
use, the day in Holy Week on which notorious sinners were 
formally reconciled to the Church after doing penance was 
called Green Thursday. 

The Legend of St. Veronica. According to a not very ancient tradition, 
St. Veronica, who is frequently mentioned in the apocryphal scriptures, was 
one of the women who accompanied Jesus to Golgotha. In the Acts of 
Pilate we read that she came forward as witness for the defence, and de¬ 
clared that after suffering for twelve years from an issue of blood she had 
been immediately cured by merely touching our Lord’s garment. 3 * * * * I n reply 
the Jews are said to have refused to accept the testimony of a woman. 


1 x. 8. 9 John xv. 1. 

3 Acta Pilati, C. vii. Compare Tisch. 239 and 298. In the MS. known 

as A her name appears as Bepubcri , in B as BepovUr] = the ancient Greek 

<pepeviKT) ; the bringer of victory. The Latin form Veronica is taken from 

the Greek, but some writers have attempted to derive it from vera icon = 

the true likeness. 



204 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Thus in the Acts of Pilate Veronica is identified with the woman who suf¬ 
fered from an issue of blood, of whom we read in the synoptic gospels; 1 
Eusebius, however, though he gives a detailed account of this woman, does 
not identify her with Veronica. He writes: “ From that town [i.e., Paneas, 
afterwards Caesarea Philippi] it is believed that the woman with the issue 
of blood came, who, as we read in the gospels, was delivered from her 
malady by our Redeemer. Her house is still pointed out in the town, 
and there still exist some remarkable memorials of our Saviour’s goodness 
toward her. On a lofty stone near the door of her house is the bronze 
figure of a woman, kneeling on one knee with her hands stretched out in 
an attitude of supplication. Opposite to her is the figure, also in bronze, 
of a man, clothed with a cloak, who is holding out his hand toward her. 
At his feet round the pillar grows a peculiar plant that has climbed up to 
the hem of his cloak and serves as a remedy for various diseases. This 
male figure is believed to represent Jesus. It has been preserved to the 
present time, and I saw it with my own eyes when I visited the town.” 2 
According to the apocryphal “Death of Pilate,”* Veronica possessed the 
portrait of our Lord’s holy Face, which He had impressed for her upon a 
linen cloth on one of His journeys to preach the gospel. On the other 
hand, the “Vindicta Salvatoris ” 4 only say that Veronica treasured in her 
home and venerated the likeness of Christ on a white cloth, but we are not 
told when and how it came into her possession. In the fourteenth century 
this legend was amplified, and thenceforth Veronica is said to have wiped 
our Lord’s face with a handkerchief, when He turned round on His way to 
Calvary, and His features remained indelibly traced upon the cloth. This 
meeting with Veronica is now commemorated as the sixth station of the 
cross, and is believed to have occurred some no or 120 paces westward of 
the spot where the cross was transferred to Simon of Cyrene. The earliest 
representations of this scene date from the fifteenth century, and at the 
same place Veronica’s grave is pointed out; on it is her bust carved in 
stone. This portrait of our Lord is said to have been taken to Rome as 
early as the reign of Tiberius, and to have been shown to the emperor. 5 
According to another tradition it did not reach Rome until 705 a.d. It is 
now one of the most precious relics in St. Peter’s. 

Golgotha. Among the ancients there were no fixed places of 
execution, such as existed in the Middle Ages, but when a 
criminal was to be put to death a place was selected that was 
either on high ground, and consequently conspicuous, or in a 
busy thoroughfare, the intention being to give publicity to the 
execution, that it might have a deterrent effect upon the spec¬ 
tators. Golgotha was chosen as the place for our Lord’s cru¬ 
cifixion. We learn from the Bible that it was outside the walls, 
but not far from Jerusalem, 6 and we may infer that it was close 

1 Matthew ix. 18 and parallel passages. 

8 H. E. 7,. 18.. 

8 Mors Pilati, qui Jesum condemnavit: compare Tisch. 4^6-4=18 

4 Compare Tisch., 471-486. 

6 Vindicta Salvatoris, 34 (Tisch. 485). 

6 Matthew xxvii. 32; Hebr. xiii. 12; John xix. 20. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 205 

by a public road . 1 The name Golgotha means cranium , or, as 
the evangelists say, the place of a skull. Three reasons for this 
name have been suggested . 2 Recent scholars are almost unani¬ 
mous in thinking that the configuration of the spot gave rise 
to the name, and that Golgotha was a rocky mound, shaped like 
a skull, and devoid of vegetation. Such a mound would be a 
conspicuous object, and the already mentioned Pilgrim from 
Bordeaux describes Calvary as a little hill ( monticulus Gol¬ 
gotha). Others 3 derive the name from the skulls of male¬ 
factors previously executed on that spot; but against this 
derivation must be urged the fact that nowhere is there any 
record of the existence of a fixed place for executions, and, 
moreover, as the Jews had a horror of corpses and human re¬ 
mains, such things would not have been tolerated near a public 
thoroughfare and the tomb of a pious Jew. Some early com¬ 
mentators refer to the Jewish legend that the head of Adam, the 
first of the human race, was buried there . 4 Tertullian is the 
earliest Christian writer who refers to the Jewish tradition; he 
writes: “ Our forefathers told us that a large skull was found 
here; we received a tradition that the first man was buried 
here.” A good many of the Fathers identify the place of cruci¬ 
fixion with Adam’s tomb. Epiphanius not only asserts that our 
Lord’s place of execution was called Golgotha, the place of a 
skull, because Adam was buried there, but he explicitly denies 
that the name was in any way connected with the configura¬ 
tion of the locality. According to a tradition to which much 
weight must be attached, although it was questioned by a few 
writers in the eighteenth century, and has been recently con¬ 
tested with all the force of scientific research, the present 
Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands on the site of Golgotha 
and contains within itself the holy places where our Lord was 
crucified and buried. We cannot believe that the early Chris- 
tions would have failed to commemorate these sacred spots, 
since Christ’s death on the cross and His triumphant resur- 

1 Matthew xxvii. 39. 

2 Compare Sylveira, viii. 12, 1. Mommert, /. c . 21-36. 

8 St. Jerome, Bede, and Jansenius. 

4 Tertull. Adv. Marc.; Orig. Tract. 35 in Marc.; Cypr. (de resurrec- 
tione Christi) : Nos ad Christum pertinentes, cuius sanguine creditur. Adam 
calvaria, qui sub loco, quo crux domini fixa erat humatus creditur ab 
antiquis; Athanas. (de passione Salv.); Epiphanius (Haer. 46, 5); Am¬ 
brose, Jerome, and Augustinus. 



206 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


rection are events that lie at the very root of Christianity. 
Their position could easily be ascertained from our Lord’s 
mother, St. John, and the pious women who were present 
at the crucifixion, as well as from Joseph of Arimathea and 
Nicodemus, who buried Jesus, and from the many disciples 
who visited His tomb. That the places where Christ was 
crucified and buried were known with precision by Chris¬ 
tians in the first century is an assumption based on strong 
a priori evidence, and supported by St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
(3 1 5-386 a.d. J, who writes: “It is not only now, but from 
that time [i.e., the time of the apostles Peter, Andrew, and 
John] that a multitude of strangers have begun to assemble 
here.” 1 These words must refer to an unbroken series of 
pilgrimages to the holy places, and the pilgrims undoubtedly 
preserved the tradition regarding their positions; there is no 
ground at all for supposing that all knowledge of the locality 
was lost in consequence of the wars between Jews and Romans. 
The absence of Christians from Jerusalem lasted a very short 
time, and even then the Emperor Hadrian himself took a step 
which preserved exact knowledge of the holy places, in spite 
of the changes resulting from the devastation caused by the 
war and the consequent erection of new buildings. Eusebius 2 
tells us that Hadrian erected a temple of Venus on this sacred 
site, thus preventing its being forgotten. Constantine the Great, 
and his mother Helena, caused the idolatrous statues to be 
removed, and the soil excavated, and thus the holy sepulchre 
and our Lord’s cross were discovered. It is an undeniable fact 
that both built Christian churches on the sites thus revealed, 
namely, a rotunda, known as the Anastasis, over our Lord’s 
sepulchre, and a basilica, called the Martyrion, at the place 
where the cross had stood. These churches were more than 
once pulled down and rebuilt. At the time of the crusades they 
formed one large church, which in its essentials still exists. 

The accuracy of this tradition was challenged by a few 
writers of earlier date, but it was not until the nineteenth cen¬ 
tury that any serious attempt was made to disprove it. A short 
survey of the literature dealing with this subject is given by 
Dr. Karl Zimmermann in a volume containing maps and plans 


1 Catech. 17, 16. 


2 Vita Constant. 3, 25. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


207 


of the ancient city of Jerusalem. He enables us to form a clear 
idea of the debated points, for on one of his plates he gives in 
tabular form the opinions of sixteen scholars regarding the 
topography of Jerusalem in our Lord’s time. Edward Robin¬ 
son, an American scholar, in the third volume of his famous 
work on Palestine, 1 regrets the ancient tradition, and tries to 
prove that the site of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre 
was, at the time of the crucifixion, regarded as part of the actual 
city, whereas Holy Scripture tells us that our Lord was put to 
death and buried outside the city. In consequence of an attack 
made upon him by Dr. Alexander, chaplain to the Anglican 
Bishop of Jerusalem, Robinson made the following definite 
statement: “ The second wall must have run considerably to 
the west of the Sepulchre.” 2 He discusses the matter very fully 
in his account of his second journey in Palestine (1852) and 
displays great erudition in the attempt to prove his point. 

The question regarding the authenticity of the site of the 
church is connected with a further question regarding the so- 
called second wall of Jerusalem, which, according to Josephus, 3 
began at the Gennath Gate and in the time of Christ enclosed 
the lower city on the west and north, running either east or west 
of the present church. From the standpoint of purely scientific 
investigation this question cannot be answered conclusively until 
the foundations of the ancient city have been definitely ascer¬ 
tained by means of careful excavations, such as became possible 
only after the Crimean War. Konrad Schick, an architect from 
Wiirttemberg, has done valuable work in exploring the original 
site of Jerusalem, and so far the results of his investigations 
tend to confirm rather than to overthrow the ecclesiastical tradi¬ 
tion concerning the holy places. He comes to the conclusion 
that the third wall, built by Herod Agrippa, may probably be 
identified with the present city wall, and among others the 
French Academician and Senator de Saulcy take the same 
view. Jerusalem seems to have extended westwards, so that the 
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, situated originally between the 
second and third walls, was eventually included in the city. 
Excavations near it have resulted in the discovery of some 

1 Biblical Researches in Palestine, ed. 2. 

2 Op. cit. vol. iii. p. 255. 

8 B. J. V. 4, 2. 



208 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


ancient tombs, and this is in itself evidence that human habita¬ 
tions cannot have stood there until a later period. Topograph¬ 
ical investigation has shown that a great many remains of 
ancient houses existed to the east but not to the west of 
the church, and this fact seems to justify the inference that 
the church, with its holy places, was situated to the west of the 
second wall, which in the time of our Lord ran round Jerusalem 
on the northern and western sides. The old tradition of the 
Church is upheld therefore by many scholars, Protestant as well 
as Catholic. Socinus, one of the greatest authorities on Pales¬ 
tine at the present day, says that he is not yet in a position to 
express a decided opinion on this question, but is inclined to 
accept the tradition of the Church. 

The procession at last reached Calvary, at the spot where, 
according to an already mentioned old Jewish tradition, Adam 
was buried. 1 Before a death sentence was carried out, it was 
usual among the Jews to give the condemned man some kind 
of narcotic, that he might suffer less pain. Women of the no¬ 
bility used to prepare and supply this narcotic, thus showing their 
sympathy with those about to die. The drink consisted gener¬ 
ally of wine in which grains of incense were dissolved. It is 
believed that the custom originated in connection with Prov. 
xxxi. 6, 7: “ Give strong drink to them that are sad, and wine 
to them that are grieved in mind, let them drink and forget 
their want, and remember their sorrow no more.” St. Matthew 
and St. Mark tell us that a draught of this kind was offered to 
our divine Saviour when He reached Calvary; it consisted of 
wine, not of vinegar, mixed with gall, or, according to St. Mark, 
with myrrh. It is easy to reconcile the two statements. The 
word for gall in both Greek and Latin bears the extended 
signification of bitterness, therefore we may understand St. 
Matthew to say that the wine was mixed with a bitter fluid, and 
St. Mark defines this fluid as an infusion of myrrh, or else the 
wine may have been mixed with myrrh and the juice of other 
bitter plants. We must distinguish this draught from that 
offered to Jesus while hanging on the cross. In all probability 
the first narcotic drink was given Him by the pious women, but 


1 Orig. in Matthew: venit enim ad me traditio quaedam tails, quod corpus 
Adami primi hominis ibi sepultum est, ubi crucifixus est Christus, ut sicut 
in Adamo omnes moriuntur, sic in Christo omnes znvificentur. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


209 


after taking a little of it, He refused to drink it, because He 
wished to retain full consciousness and to drain to the dregs 
the agony of death on the cross. 


II. The Crucifixion 
Matthew 

35. And after they had crucified 
him, they divided his garments, 
casting lots; that it might be ful¬ 
filled which was spoken by the 
prophet, saying: They divided my 
garments among them, and upon 
my vesture they cast lots. 

36. And they sat and watched 
him. 

37. And they put over his head 
his cause written: This is Jesus 
the King of the Jews. 

38. Then were crucified with him 
two thieves: one on the right hand, 
and one on the left. 

39. And they that passed by blas¬ 
phemed him, wagging their heads. 

40. And saying: Vah, thou that 
destroyest the temple of God and 
in three days dost rebuild it; save 
thy own self: if thou be the Son of 
God, come down from the cross. 

41. In like manner also the chief 
priests with the scribes and ancients 
mocking said: 

42. He saved others; himself he 
cannot save: if he be the king of 
Israel, let him now come down 


Mark 

24. And crucifying him, they 
divided his garments, casting lots 
upon them, what every man should 
take. 

25. And it was the third hour, 
and they crucified him. 

26. And the inscription of his 
cause .was written over: The King 
of the Jews. 

27. And with him they crucify 
two thieves, the one on his right 
hand and the other on his left. 


\nd Death of Christ 

xxvii. 35-50 

from the cross, and we will believe 
him. 

43. He trusted in God; let him 
now deliver him, if he will have 
him: for he said: I am the Son of 
God. 

44. And the self-same thing the 
thieves also, that were crucified 
with him, approached him with. 

45. Now from the sixth hour 
there was darkness over the whole 
earth, until the ninth hour. 

46. And about the ninth hour 
Jesus cried with a loud voice say¬ 
ing: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that 
is, My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me? 

47. And some that stood there 
and heard said: This man calleth 
Elias. 

48. And immediately one of them 
running, took a sponge, and filled 
it with vinegar; and put it on a 
reed, and gave him to drink. 

49. And the others said: Let be, 
let us see whether Elias will come 
to deliver him. 

50. And Jesus again crying with 
a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 

v. 24-31 

28. And the Scripture was ful¬ 
filled which saith: And with the 
wicked he was reputed. 

29. And they that passed by, 
blasphemed him, wagging their 
heads and saying: Vah: thou that 
destroyest the temple of God, and 
in three days buildest it up again: 

30. Save thyself, coming down 
from the cross. 

31. In like manner also the chief 
priests mocking said with the 




210 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Mark : 

scribes one to another: He saved 
others, himself he cannot save. 

32. Let Christ the king of Israel 
come down now from the cross, 
that we may see and believe. And 
they that were crucified with him, 
reviled him. 

33. And when the sixth hour was 
come, there was darkness over the 
whole earth until the ninth hour. 

34. And at the ninth hour, Jesus 
cried out with a loud voice, say¬ 
ing: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? 

Luke x> 

33. And when they were come to 
the place which is called Calvary, 
they crucified him there, and the 
robbers, one on the right hand and 
the other on the left. 

34. And Jesus said: Father, for¬ 
give them, for they know not what 
they do. But they dividing his gar¬ 
ments, cast lots. 

35. And the people stood behold¬ 
ing, and the rulers with them de¬ 
rided him, saying: He saved others, 
let him save himself, if he be Christ, 
the elect of God. 

36. And the soldiers also mocked 
him, coming to him, and offering 
him vinegar, 

37. And saying: If thou be the 
king of the Jews, save thyself. 

38. And there was also a super¬ 
scription written over him in letters 
of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew: 
This is the King of the Jews. 

39. And one of those robbers 
who were hanged, blasphemed him, 

John xi 

18. Where they crucified him, 
and with him two others, one on 
each side, and Jesus in the midst. 

19. And Pilate wrote a title also: 
and he put it upon the cross. And 
the writing was, Jesus of Naza¬ 
reth the King of the Jews. 


v. 32-37 

Which is, being interpreted: My 
God, my God, why hast thou for¬ 
saken me? 

35. And some of the standers-by 
hearing, said: Behold he calleth 
Elias. 

36. And one running and filling a 
sponge with vinegar, and putting 
it upon a reed, gave him to drink, 
saying: Stay, let us see if Elias 
come to take him down. 

37. And Jesus having cried out 
with a loud voice, gave up the ghost, 

iii. 33-46 

saying: If thou be Christ, save thy¬ 
self, and us. 

40. But the other answering re¬ 
buked him, saying: Neither dost 
thou fear God, seeing thou art under 
the same condemnation? 

41. And we indeed justly, for we 
receive the due reward of our deeds: 
but this man hath done no evil. 

42. And he said to Jesus: Lord, 
remember me when thou shalt come 
into thy kingdom. 

43. And Jesus said to him: Amen 
I say to thee, this day thou shalt be 
with me in paradise. 

44. And it was almost the sixth 
hour; and there was darkness over 
all the earth until the ninth hour. 

45. And the sun was darkened; 
and the veil of the temple was rent 
in the midst. 

46. And Jesus crying with a loud 
voice said: Father, into thy hands 
I commend my spirit. And saying 
this he gave up the ghost. 

s. 18-21 

20. This title therefore many of 
the Jews did read: because the place 
where Jesus was crucified was nigh 
to the city: and it was written in 
Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin. 

21. Then the chief priests of the 
Jews said to Pilate: Write not, the 





CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


211 


John xix. 22-30 


king of the Jews; but that he said: 
I am the king of the Jews. 

22. Pilate answered: What I 
have written, I have written. 

23. The soldiers therefore when 
they had crucified him, took his gar¬ 
ments (and they made four parts, 
to every soldier a part) and also his 
coat. Now the coat was without seam, 
woven from the top throughout. 

24. They said then one to an¬ 
other: Let us not cut it, but let us 
cast lots for it whose it shall be; 
that the scripture might be fulfilled, 
saying: They have parted my gar¬ 
ments among them: and upon my 
vesture they have cast lot. And the 
soldiers indeed did these things. 

25. Now there stood by the cross 
of Jesus, his mother, and his 
mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, 
and Mary Magdalen. 


26. When Jesus therefore had 
seen his mother and the disciple 
standing, whom he loved, he saith to 
his mother: Woman, behold thy 
son. 

27. After that, he saith to the 
disciple: Behold thy mother. And 
from that hour the disciple took 
her to his own. 

28. Afterwards Jesus knowing 
that all things were now accom¬ 
plished, that the scripture might be 
fulfilled, said: I thirst. 

29. Now there was a vessel set 
there full of vinegar. And they 
putting a sponge full of vinegar 
about hyssop, put it to his mouth. 

30. Jesus therefore when he had 
taken the vinegar, said: It is con¬ 
summated. And bowing his head, 
he gave up the ghost. 


Crucifixion as a death penalty. Crucifixion, which as we have 

seen was a pagan, and not a Jewish mode of execution, consisted 
in hanging a condemned criminal to a cross, there to die a linger¬ 
ing and agonizing death. Crucifixion must be distinguished 
from hanging on a gibbet, which is mentioned in the Law of 
Moses . 1 In certain cases the bodies of those who had been 
stoned to death or slain by the sword were hung up on a gibbet 
and left there until the evening, in order that spectators might 
be filled with horror and deterred from similar crimes. We 
hear of crucifixion first as practised by the barbarous Scythians, 
and later it was adopted by the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, 
then by the Carthaginians, and from them by the Romans in 
the fourth, or perhaps the third, century b.c. According to 
Cicero , 2 crucifixion was a most cruel and horrible form of pun¬ 
ishment, which as a rule was inflicted only on criminals of the 
lowest class and slaves, and consequently the crucifixion of a 
Roman citizen was regarded as something so outrageous that 
no words could be found to describe its ignominy. The crosses 
used were not always of the same form, nor was the penalty 
invariably inflicted in the same manner. 


Deut. xxi. 21-23. 


In Verr. v. 64. 




212 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


The form and size of our Lord's cross. According to the 
Fathers and to universal tradition, our Lord’s cross was the 
so-called four-armed cross, the upright protruding somewhat 
over the transverse beam. Lipsius called this kind of cross the 
crux immissa. We may refer to two witnesses on this subject. 
Justin Martyr writes: rectum enim unum lignum est, a quo 
summa pars in cornu attollitur, quum adaptatum fuerit aliud 
lignum, et utrimque extrema vel cornua uni cornui adjuncta, 
apparuerint; et quod in medio figitur, in quo vehuntur qui cru- 
cifiguntur, ipsum quoque velut cornu eminet et cornus speciem 
exhibet cum aliis cornibus conformatum et fixum . 1 St. Irenaeus 
writes: “ The shape of the cross, too, has five distinct and chief 
points, — two in its length, two in its breadth, and one in the 
middle, — upon which rests the person crucified.” 2 Our belief 
that this was the shape of our Lord’s cross is strengthened by 
the fact that the Fathers and many early writers compare His 
cross with Moses, praying with outstretched arms, also with 
human beings, capable of walking upright and of extending 
their hands, and with a man swimming, or a bird flying. The 
circumstance of the inscription on the cross, of which we shall 
speak further on, shows that it must have had four arms. The 
argument that a T-shaped cross would have been lighter to 
carry and more quickly made is not sufficient to overthrow the 
old tradition. If our Lord had carried only the transverse beam 
and not the whole cross, it might be possible to urge that His 
cross was probably, though not certainly, of a T shape. 

Crosses were as a rule of no great height, and a high cross 
was exceptional. Eusebius has preserved the Acts of the heroic 
martyr Blandina, who, when crucified, was near enough to the 
ground for wild beasts to reach her. 3 A very clear indication 
of the height of our Lord’s cross is supplied by the fact that 
soldiers raised a sponge to His mouth by means of a branch of 
hyssop a foot or a foot and a half in length, consequently the 
cross could not have been above ten feet high. It is generally 
represented as much higher, but this is due to a desire to render 
it more conspicuous, because it is the symbol of our faith. 

Our Lord carried the whole cross, and not only the transverse beam. 
All the four evangelists lay stress upon His bearing the " cross,” and both 
ecclesiastical and profane writers tell us that at the time of Christ and long 


1 Dial, cum Tryph. 91. 


Adv. haer. II, 24, 4. 


8 H. E. s, 2. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 213 

afterwards condemned criminals were forced to carry the entire cross to 
the place of execution. The grammarian Nonius Marcellus has preserved 
a fragment of Plautus r patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde affigatur cruci, 
and these words have led Professor Cobet, a Dutch philologist of Leyden' 
to maintain that criminals never carried the whole cross but only the 
transverse beam, known as the patibulum, and that this is what Christ car¬ 
ried to Calvary, where it was fastened to an upright beam that had served 
for previous executions at the same spot. 1 2 * In answer to this theory we 
may point out that the fragment of Plautus, in which a distinction is 
drawn between patibulum and crux , dates from at least two hundred 
years before our Lord’s death, and therefore cannot possibly be quoted to 
prove that at a much later period criminals were required to carry only 
a portion of the cross. From the time of Cicero onwards patibulum was 
used in Latin as a synonym with crux, so that, even if the Greek cravpos 
had been rendered in the Vulgate by patibulum, we should still be unable to 
say with certainty that Jesus carried only the transverse beam. The word 
in the Vulgate is crux, which designates the whole cross, and Tertullian, 
too, says that Christ bore the crux* and goes on to compare Him with 
Isaac carrying the wood to the place of sacrifice.* This parallel certainly 
seems to show that Tertullian believed our Lord to have borne the whole 
cross. That our Saviour would have been too weak to carry it after under¬ 
going so severe a scourging is an argument of no great weight, because, as 
has already been said. His cross was not large. 

Christ is fastened to the cross. When the procession reached 
Golgotha, the cross intended for our Lord was taken from 
Simon of Cyrene and set upright in the earth. Our Saviour 
was either hoisted to the cross with ropes, or He was made to 
climb a ladder and was then placed by the soldiers on what was 
called the seat. This was a piece of wood projecting from about 
the middle of the upright beam. It facilitated the process of 
nailing the condemned criminal to the cross, and also served as 
a support, preventing the full weight of the body from hanging 
from the hands. That such a seat was present on our Lord’s 
cross appears from the passages already quoted from Justin 
Martyr and St. Irenaeus. The person to be crucified was in the 
first instance fastened to the cross by ropes. Profane writers 
speak of ropes used at crucifixions, and Christians refer more 
definitely to them. In particular St. Hilary of Poitiers, who has 
left us a very detailed description of Christ’s crucifixion, speaks 
of the wounds caused by knots in the ropes. 4 

After our Lord’s body was securely bound to the cross, He 
was moreover nailed to it. The Latin word meaning “ to cru- 

1 Mnemosyne (a review published in Leyden), vol. viii, p. 276. 

2 Adv. Jud. 10; De carne Christi, 5. 

8 Gen. xxii. 6. 

4 De Trinitate, 10, 13. 



214 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

cify ” and the reports of early authors make it quite certain that 
large nails were driven through both hands and feet, and there 
is no evidence at all to support the ascertion that the hands 
alone were nailed, and the feet merely bound. On the contrary, 
the testimony of the earliest ecclesiastical writers prove conclu¬ 
sively that our Lord’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross, 1 
as had been foretold by the prophet, 2 and as is quite evident 
from St. Luke’s gospel (xxiv. 39, 40), where our Lord’s words 
and actions show plainly that on His feet as well as on His 
hands were wounds caused by the nails. There is some doubt 
whether each foot was nailed separately, or whether the feet 
were crossed and pierced with one large nail. In the earliest 
pictures of the crucifixion our Saviour’s feet are nailed side by 
side, and are often represented as resting on some kind of 
support. 

On pictures of the crucifixion, dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth 
centuries, our Lord is often depicted as being nailed to a cross laid flat on 
the ground, and then lifted up with it. The majority of commentators, 
however, think that there is no justification for believing that crucifixion 
was performed thus, and, as we have already seen, the ordinary technical 
expressions fail to support this theory. Friedrich attempts to prove that 
as a rule persons condemned to crucifixion were nailed to the cross as it 
lay on the ground, although in cases where the victim did not carry his 
cross to the place of execution, but found it already in position, he was 
nailed to the upright cross. He maintains: (1) that the technical expres¬ 
sions for “ to crucify ” are no less applicable to the process of nailing to 
a recumbent than to an upright cross; (2) that the cross carried by Christ 
must have been comparatively small, and consequently incapable of sup¬ 
porting the weight of three ladders and three human beings; (3) that in 
the Acts of the martyrdom of Pionius, preserved by the Bollandists, we 
read how Pionius was nailed to a recumbent cross, and then raised on it: 
eum igitur ligno suffixum erexerunt. The majority of scholars, however, 
are probably correct in believing this mode of crucifixion to have been very 
exceptional. 

The inscription upon our Lord’s cross. After Jesus had been 
nailed to the cross, the so-called title ( titulns ) was fastened to 
it above His head. It was a white tablet, on which the reason 
iot His condemnation was written in black letters. According 
to Roman custom the reason for a death sentence was always 
published, sometimes by a herald’s proclamation, sometimes by 
means of a white tablet bearing a suitable inscription, which 

1 Tertull. Adv. Marc. 3, 19; Hilary, Tract in Ps. cxliii; August, Tract 37 

in Joann., in psalm 39. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


215 


was either hung' round the condemned person’s neck, or carried 
in front of him by his executioners. The tablet fastened to our 
Lord’s cross bore the words, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of 
the Jews,” and St. John tells us that they were written in 
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Both in its form and contents this 
inscription may be inscribed to the action of divine Providence. 
It stated that Jesus, the Son of Mary, known as the Nazarene 
because His early years had been spent in humility and poverty 
in the unimportant town of Nazareth, was the King of the Jews, 
and for this reason had been condemned to death. The wording 
of the inscription was intended partly as a justification of the 
Roman procurator’s action in confirming the death sentence, 
and partly as a serious charge against the Jewish officials. The 
latter realized this fact, and, as St. John tells us, requested Pilate 
to alter the inscription, and to call Jesus the “ alleged ” or “ self- 
styled” King of the Jews, This request was curtly refused, 
and so, by divine ordinance, the inscription, written by the 
Roman governor, proclaimed to the whole world the fact that 
the crucified Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews. 
Moreover, the proclamation was made in three languages, — in 
Hebrew, the sacred language of the Jews, because the Messiah 
belonged to their nation; in Greek, which was universally 
spoken, and which was used in preaching to mankind the first 
tidings of salvation, and in Latin, the official language of the 
Roman Empire, which facilitated the missionary labors of the 
apostles by serving as a means of intercommunication between 
various nations. God ordained that Jews, Greeks, and Romans 
should co-operate, each after their own fashion, in bringing 
about the fullness of time 1 when the Messiah should appear, 
and, therefore, it was in these three languages that the great 
truth was first proclaimed: Christ crucified is the power of God 
and the wisdom of God to all who believe. 2 3 

According to St. John Chrysostom 8 and Sozomenus 4 this titulus was 
found when St. Helena discovered our Lord’s cross in 326 a.d. It lay 
apart from the three crosses, but evidently fitted one better than the others, 
and all doubt as to which was the true cross was removed by the restora¬ 
tion of health to a sick woman who touched it. According to an ancient 
tradition this tablet was afterwards taken to Rome, and is still preserved 
there in the Church of Santa Croce. For a long time no one knew where it 


1 Gal. iv. 4. 

3 Horn. 84, in Joann. 


a 1 Cor. i. 23, 24. 

4 H. E. 2, 1. 



216 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


was kept, but in 1492 it was discovered during a restoration of the church 
undertaken by Cardinal de Mendoza, Primate of Toledo. It lay in a leaden 
case, dosed with three seals of wax, each of which bore the portrait of a 
cardinal and the inscription Gerardus Card. S. Crucis. It is believed that 
this must have been the cardinal who was afterwards Pope Lucius III. The 
case containing the titulus was built into a recess in the wall, and the stone 
that closed the recess bore on its inner side the words Titulus Crucis. The 
relic itself is a wooden tablet, on which only a few inscribed words and 
letters can be seen; the tablet itself bears every mark of authenticity, but 
the letters upon it belong probably to a later date. There are two reasons 
for believing them to be less ancient than the wood: the original inscription 
was certainly written, as there was no time for carving, and also the form 
of the script indicates that it is of later origin. 

The partition of our Lord’s garments. It was a Roman cus¬ 
tom for men condemned to crucifixion to be stripped and nailed 
naked to the cross, their garments being the perquisite of the 
executioners. This custom was observed in the case of our 
Lord. Allusion to it is made by Artemidorus, a contemporary 
of Hadrian, in his Oneirokritika , 1 a work in which he defends 
the practice of interpreting dreams. He writes in a frivolous 
manner: “To be crucified is a piece of good luck for a poor 
man, inasmuch as it exalts him, but for a rich man it is a mis¬ 
fortune, since he is crucified naked.” The evangelists tell us 
that our Saviour’s garments were taken from Him and divided 
among the soldiers. The question whether Jesus was abso¬ 
lutely naked or was allowed to retain a loin-cloth is answered 
in different ways by writers, both ancient and recent. Not only 
in the Bible, but also in the works of Greek and Latin classical 
authors, 2 the word “naked” is used of one who is clad either very 
scantily, or simply with one undergarment, 3 and consequently 
it is possible that our Lord retained His loin-cloth, especially 
as the Jews had a great horror of nakedness, and women were 
present at the crucifixion. On the other hand it must be ad¬ 
mitted that He was executed as a common criminal, and there¬ 
fore was unlikely to receive any consideration from the rough 
soldiery. In the Acts of Pilate 4 He is represented as wearing 
a cloth round His loins, and in the earliest pictures of the cruci¬ 
fixion He invariably wears either a narrow doth or a long tunic 
reaching from His neck to His feet, but leaving His arms bare. 

1 2, 61. 

* John xxi. 7; Dion. Hal. 1, 83; Vergil, Georg. I, 299. 

8 Acts xix. 16; James ii. 15. 

4 A. x; compare Tisch. 246. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


217 


The two thieves are invariably depicted with loin-cloths. A 
further question is whether Jesus still wore the crown of thorns 
while hanging* * on the cross.. The evangelists tell us that the 
scarlet cloak was removed before He set out on His way to 
Golgotha, but as there is no mention of the crown of thorns, 
Tertullian, 1 Origen, 2 and most early commentators assume that 
our Lord continued to wear it on His way to execution and on 
the cross. There is an explicit statement to this effect in the 
Acts of Pilate. 3 On the other hand, hardly one of the early 
representations of the crucifixion (fifth to seventh century) 
shows either the crown of thorns or a royal crown, although the 
latter occurs frequently at a subsequent period. The distribu¬ 
tion of our Lord's garments among the Roman soldiers is 
recorded by all the evangelists, most briefly by St. Luke and 
most fully by St. John. Our knowledge of the clothing usually 
worn by the Jews allows us to assume that our Lord's garments 
consisted of a kind of cloak worn by day as an upper garment 
and also serving, in the case of the poor, as a covering by 
night, an undergarment resembling a shirt, and the coat woven 
in one piece, unless, indeed, our Lord wore this instead of the 
usual Jewish undergarment. Besides these articles of clothing, 
He wore a loin-cloth and sandals. The four Roman soldiers 
who crucified Him divided His raiment into four portions, but 
the evangelists do not agree as to the mode of division, for in 
the synoptic gospels we read that the clothes were divided by 
lot, whereas St. John says that the four soldiers each received 
a share and cast lots only for the seamless coat. Most com¬ 
mentators think that this coat was the only garment for which 
lots were cast, 4 but this restriction of the casting of lots involves 
some difficulties. St. John says that they made four parts, to 
every soldier a part, and then goes on to speak of the seamless 
coat, and to state that the soldiers decided by lot whose it 
should be. This account does not preclude the possibility that 
lots were cast also for the four parts into which our Lord's 
other garments were divided; in fact St. Mark seems to imply 
that lots were cast for each share of them, for he says that the 
soldiers cast lots to decide, not who should have any particular 
garment, but what every man should take. St. Augustine points 


1 Adv. Jul. 13. 2 Horn. 35 in Matthew. 

* A. x. 1; Tisch. 246; and B. x. 2; Tisch. 303. 4 August., Maid,, and others. 




218 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


out St. Mark’s statement, 1 but decides in favor of the contrary 
opinion, but his further explanation of St. Mark’s words is 
somewhat forced. If we compare St. John’s account about our 
Lord’s coat, as distinguished from the other garments, with 
St. Mark’s account of the manner in which all clothes were 
distributed, we may conclude that in all probability our Lord’s 
entire clothing was disposed of by lot, and that St. John wishes 
to lay stress, not on the fact that lots were cast for the seamless 
coat, but rather on its being undivided. Both St. John and 
St. Matthew (unless in the case of the latter the remark is an 
explanation) point out that a Messianic prophecy was fulfilled 
when lots were cast for our Lord’s garments. Psalm xxi (xxii) 
is certainly Messianic, and when David says, “ They parted my 
garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lots,” he 
represented the Messiah as already on the cross, and his clothing 
as ownerless. 

St. John calls our Lord's seamless coat a x ir(!)V , which is the word gen¬ 
erally used in the New Testament to designate the sort of shirt worn by 
the Jews. It was worn next to the skin, reached from the neck to the 
ankles and was kept in place with a girdle, which enabled it to be tucked up 
when the wearer was walking or working. It usually was made of woollen 
or cotton stuff, but our Lord’s x iT( ^ v was, as St. John says, without seam, 
woven from the top throughout. Among the ancients the weavers were 
more skilful than those of the present day, and could produce seamless 
garments. Jewish priests were in the habit of wearing a seamless gar¬ 
ment, of which Flavius Josephus gives a short description, 2 3 and this en¬ 
ables us to determine approximately the shape of our Lord’s coat. It was 
long and close fitting, with narrow sleeves and an opening at the neck, 
which could be drawn tight or left loose by means of a string. In all 
probability our Lord wore this coat under the usual undergarment worn 
by the Jews, not instead of it. The reasons for assuming this to have been 
the case are two in number, viz., St. John speaks of the other garments in 
the plural, and the fact that they could be divided into four parts. Accord¬ 
ing to tradition St. Helena presented the Holy Coat to the city of Treves, 
where it is preserved in the Cathedral, and has been periodically exposed to 
view ever since the close of the twelfth century. Dr. C. Willems has in an 
archaeological and historical dissertation on the Holy Coat at Treves em¬ 
bodied the report of a commission of experts who in 1890 examined this 
coat. They declared as the result of their examination that the brownish 
texture of the Holy Coat consisted apparently of linen or cotton. Our 
Lord's seamless coat is often regarded as a symbol of the inseparability of 


1 Tract, in Joann. 118, 3: Marcus solus videtur aliquant intulisse quaes- 

tionem, dicendo enim: mittentes sortem super eis, quis quid tolleret, tan- 
quam super omnibus vestimentis, non super sola tunica sors missa sit , locu- 
tus videtur. 

3 Ant iii. 7, 2. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


219 

charity toward God and toward our neighbor, as well as the unity of our 
faith and of the Church. 

The first word on the cross. St. Luke alone records that our 
Saviour said, “ Father forgive them, for they know not what 
they do.” Amid His excruciating sufferings He besought par¬ 
don for the Jewish nation that had brought about His cruci¬ 
fixion, and thus our Lord displayed in the highest degree that 
love of enemies that He required of His followers. 1 He prayed 
not only for the ignorant and misled populace, 2 but also for the 
Sanhedrists who urged His death. Of course when Jesus in 
His infinite love and mercy asked forgiveness for His fellow 
countrymen, the fulfillment of his request was contingent upon 
their recognition of, and repentance for, their sin. Our Saviour 
stated as the reason for His prayer, that the Jews did not know 
what a crime they were committing. Both St. Peter 3 and St. 
Paul 4 declared, in extenuation of the horrible sin committed by 
the Jews and their leaders, that they acted in ignorance. But 
their ignorance was due to their own false ideas regarding the 
Messiah, their intense hatred of Jesus, and their stubbornness 
of heart in rejecting His doctrine, as well as the testimony of 
His miracles and His whole ministry, in which He aimed solely 
at promoting God’s glory and the salvation of mankind. The 
Jews were to blame for their ignorance: they did not clearly 
perceive what they were doing when they effected our Lord’s 
crucifixion, but they might, and indeed ought to have known 
the truth, for they were acquainted with the prophecies regard¬ 
ing the Messiah, and Jesus had borne testimony to Himself, 
both by word and deed. Our Lord Himself said that they had 
no excuse for their sin in not knowing Him. 5 The Jews had 
failed fully to recognize the truth, but they could now no longer 
shut their eyes to it if they appreciated in the least the wonder¬ 
ful signs that accompanied our Lord’s death, and were sus¬ 
ceptible for the power to transform mankind that proceeded 
from the cross of Christ. He had pointed out the significance 
of these things long before He died, 6 and when He interceded 
for the Jews He had in view this particular time of mercy, and 
prayed that God would allow the light of grace to shine upon 


1 Matthew v. 44. 
3 Acts iii. 17. 

6 John xv. 22. 


2 Lyranus and others. 

4 Acts xiii. 27; 1 Cor. ii. 8. 

6 John viii. 28, 29. 



220 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


them in their sin, so that, if they were not wholly hardened in 
wickedness, they might realize its enormity, repent, and be con¬ 
verted. Although the great majority of the Jews persisted in 
their sins, our Lord’s prayer was not left unheard. The Fathers 
regard the conversion of the thousands of Jews, recorded in the 
Acts of the Apostles, 1 as also the postponement of the destruc¬ 
tion of Jerusalem, whereby further opportunity for repentance 
was given, as direct results of Christ’s intercession. 

Our Saviour is taunted and insulted while hanging on the 
cross. The excessive physical suffering caused Jesus by His 
crucifixion was aggravated by the ridicule hurled at our Lordl 
from all sides. To this fact allusion is made by the synoptic 
writers alone: St. Matthew and St. Mark speak of the mockery 
of Jesus by the people and Sanhedrists, St. Luke describes more 
in detail the blasphemous words uttered by one of His fellow- 
sufferers, and he alone mentions the taunts of the Roman sol¬ 
diers. All three evangelists tell us that the people derided our 
Lord; St. Matthew and St. Mark speak especially of those 
passing by the place of execution, who “ wagged their heads 
and blasphemed Him.” As we have already seen, it was usual 
for a criminal to be crucified in a place visible from some con¬ 
siderable distance, or near a frequented thoroughfare. The 
wagging of the head on part of the passers-by indicated their 
contempt for the suffering Saviour and their gratification at 
seeing Him in so pitiable a situation. Their language expressed 
the same bitter scorn and mockery as did their gestures, and we 
cannot but infer that they were already well informed as to the 
whole course of our Lord’s trial before the Sanhedrists, for they 
quoted the words of the false witnesses, and used Christ’s testi¬ 
mony to Himself as a reason for ridiculing His divine power and 
His claim to be the Son of God. That the Sanhedrists joined 
in mocking Him was a matter of course: St. Matthew mentions 
all the three classes composing the Sanhedrin, St. Mark speaks 
only of the chief priests and scribes, while St. Luke sums them 
up briefly under the name of “ rulers.” Regarding the manner, 
too, in which Jesus was mocked by the Sanhedrists, the most 
precise information is given by St. Matthew, who tells us that 
they jeered at our Lord’s miraculous powers, representing them 


1 Acts ii. 41; iv. 1. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 221 

as fictitious, because He could not save Himself. Moreover, 
they scornfully declared that His present condition proved His 
claim to the Messianic kingship to be unworthy of credence. 
St. Matthew has preserved the very words in which they ridi¬ 
culed our Saviour’s claim to be the Son of God: “ He trusted 
in God, let him now deliver him, if he will have him, for he 
said: I am the Son of God.” Unconsciously, but by divine 
ordinance, the Sanhedrists quoted an unmistakably Messianic 
Psalm, 1 thus proving by word and deed that they themselves 
were the ungodly men described by David, who was divinely 
inspired. Of the evangelists St. Luke alone tells us that the 
Roman soldiers joined in this chorus of ridicule, and offered 
Jesus some of their sour wine, thus showing their disdain for 
His alleged kingly dignity. It should, however, be noticed that, 
according to most commentators, St. Luke is here not recording 
a distinct incident, but is anticipating what, in the accounts of 
the other evangelists, occurred later. 

The two thieves. The second word on the cross. Two crimi¬ 
nals were crucified, either at the same time as our Saviour, or 
immediately afterwards. All the four evangelists tell us that 
one was on the right, the other on the left of our Lord; St. John 
says that Jesus was “in the midst.” These apparently unim¬ 
portant details are emphasized thus because they were the out¬ 
come of both divine and human intention. The Jews wished 
Jesus to be crucified between two malefactors in order that He, 
too, might appear to be a great criminal, and God ordained that 
He should occupy this position in order that the prophecy, “ he 
was reputed with the wicked,” 2 should be fulfilled, and also to 
give visible illustration of the truth that salvation through the 
Messiah had been revealed in the midst of sinners. St. Luke 
lays more stress than the other evangelists upon the truth that 
the mission of the Messiah was due to God’s infinite mercy 
toward sinful men, who can participate in salvation only when 
they repent and forsake sin, and cling to Christ in faith. Con¬ 
sequently, with a view to illustrating this truth by a concrete 
example, St. Luke gives a detailed account of the two thieves 
on the cross, whereas St. Matthew and St. Mark only remark 
in general terms that the malefactors crucified with Jesus joined 


1 xxi. 9. 


* Ps. liii. 12. 



222 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


in reviling Him. Hence many commentators, and especially 
early Greek writers, assume that the thief on our Lord’s right 
hand began abusing Him and afterwards repented; probably, 
however, the plural is only generic and applies strictly to one of 
the thieves, viz., to the one on our Lord’s left, who, according 
to St. Luke, reviled Jesus in language resembling that employed 
by the people, the Sanhedrists, and the soldiers. He ridiculed 
Jesus for being merely a pretended Messiah, and called upon 
Him to use His power and to save both Himself and His fellow 
sufferers. This insulting language elicited from the other thief 
words addressed partly to his former comrade and partly to our 
Saviour. He rebuked sharply the thief at our Lord’s left, and 
then went on to make a frank confession of guilt, and to express 
deep contrition and detestation for his past sins. The words 
that he addressed to Jesus show his faith in our Lord’s kingly 
dignity and contain a humble prayer for pardon. In the Greek 
text the rebuke administered to the thief on our Lord’s left 
(Luke xxiii. 40) does not mean quite the same as in the Latin. 
The translation of the Greek is, “ Hast thou no fear at all of 
God? ” the stress being on the word “ fear.” The translation of 
the Latin is, “ Hast not thou any fear of God? ” the stress being 
on the pronoun “ thou.” The Greek version seems preferable, 
when considered together with the context, “ seeing thou art 
under the same condemnation.” The penitent thief means to 
say to his impenitent fellow culprit: “Think of the miserable 
plight to which thy misdeeds have brought thee, and if that be 
not enough to make thee repent, have at least some fear of the 
punishment which will be inflicted by the just God, before whose 
tribunal thou art about to appear.” The Vulgate reading may 
be paraphrased as follows: “Although the crowd surrounding 
the cross has no fear of God, yet such should not be the case 
with thee, since thou art about to die and to appear before the 
judgment-seat.” The penitent thief gave two reasons for con¬ 
demning the abuse of Jesus, viz., that they were undergoing the 
same punishment, and that He was innocent while they were 
guilty. This thief perceived and acknowledged the enormity 
of his own sins, and confessed that his painful and humiliating 
penalty was only what he deserved, 1 and, having made this frank 


Jansenius: peccati agnitio et confessio et justae poenae approbatio. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


223 

profession of contrition, he turned to our Saviour with a prayer 
for mercy. His words are expressive of his extreme modesty 
and of his firm confidence in Jesus, whom he acknowledged as 
Lord and King. 1 Here, as in other passages in St. Luke’s 
gospel, the word “Lord” is used absolutely to designate the 
dominion belonging to Jesus, in virtue of which He is the Ruler 
of men, who owe obedience to Him as well as to God the 
Father. 2 This interpretation of the thief’s form of address is 
borne out by Ps. cix. 1, which is Messianic, and also by the 
words that follow it: “ Remember me when thou shalt come into 
thy kingdom.” This can be understood only of a heavenly 
kingdom, of which Jesus is represented as Lord. In His reply 
our Saviour spoke as the Lord and King of the Messianic king¬ 
dom, who not only was able to grant the request made to Him, 
but who actually granted more than was asked. He solemnly 
promised the thief, “ This day thou shalt be with me in Para¬ 
dise,” i.e., in the abode of the righteous under the old dis¬ 
pensation. This is the second word uttered on the cross by 
our merciful Saviour, and it is full of consolation to frail and 
sinful men. 

In an Itala manuscript belonging to the eleventh century and now kept in 
Paris, the name of the penitent thief is given as Zoatham, and of the other 
as Camma or Chammatha. 3 In the apocryphal Acta Pilati 4 * the former is 
called Dysmas (in the Latin text Dismas) and the latter Gestas or Gistas. 
Two manuscripts of the same apocryphal work 8 contain an account of how 
the robber Dysmas met the Holy Family on their flight into Egypt. Struck 
by the beauty of Mary, who carried her divine Child in her arms, he fell 
on his knees and exclaimed, “ Had God a mother, I must needs say thou art 
she.” He offered hospitality to the Holy Family in his own house, and 
commended them to the care of his wife, while he himself went out to 
hunt. During his absence his son was cured from leprosy, through being 
washed in the water in which Jesus had been bathed. So great was his 
gratitude that he had a profound respect for Mary, and assisted her on her 
journey to Egypt. On her return, too, he helped her in every possible way, 
and she blessed him and promised that he would be rewarded for the serv¬ 
ice that he had rendered her. This promise was fulfilled, for the writer 
concludes the story with the words: “ For this reason, through the grace of 
our merciful God and His Mother, he was deemed worthy to suffer martyr¬ 
dom on the cross at the same time as Christ.” The same story occurs 
under a somewhat different form in the Arabic gospel of the Childhood of 


1 Maid, and Jansenius. 

2 Maid.: paucis verbis et regem et Deum Christum confitetur. 

3 Compare Tisch., ed. viii. in Matthew xxvii. 38; Marc. xv. 27. 

4 A. x; compare Tisch. 247. 

6 Tisch. Evang. apocr. 308 seqq. 



224 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Jesus, 1 according to which the Holy Family, during their flight into Egypt, 
came to a desolate region, regarded as unsafe for travellers, owing to the 
presence of Titus and Dumachus, two noted robbers, with their followers. 
Joseph and Mary determined to cross this district by night, but soon they 
encountered two robbers resting by the wayside, while the rest of the 
band slept. The two who were awake were Titus and Dumachus. Titus 
said to his companion, “ I pray thee, suffer these persons to go their way, 
unnoticed by our comrades.” Dumachus refused this request, whereupon 
Titus promised him forty drachmas, and handed him his girdle as a pledge 
that the sum would be paid. The story continues: 

Vidensque domina hera Maria, hunc latronem ipsis benefecisse, ait illi: 
Dominus Deus te dextra sua sustentabit et remissionem peccatorum tibi 
largietur. Dominus autem Jesus respondit et dixit matri suae: Post tri¬ 
gin t a annos, o mater , crucifigent me Judaei Hierosolymae et duo isti la- 
trones mecum una in crucem tollentur, Titus ad dexteram meam, et 
Dumachus ad sinistram,et post ilium diem praecedet me Titus in paradisum. 

In the Roman Martyrology the penitent thief is mentioned, without a 
name, on March 25th. 2 

The darkness and our Lord’s death agony. The three synop¬ 
tic writers all record the darkness that lasted from the sixth 
to the ninth hour, but only St. Matthew and St. Mark say that 
our Lord cried out in His desolation and died at the ninth hour. 
The synoptic evangelists undoubtedly used the Jewish method 
of reckoning time, and counted the hours from sunrise. As the 
crucifixion took place at the equinox, the sun rose about 6 a.m., 
and so the third hour was 9 a.m., and the ninth 3 p.m. St. 
Matthew and St. Mark use almost the same words in speaking 
of the darkness: “From the sixth hour there was darkness — 
until the ninth hour.” According to Jewish reckoning the sixth 
hour began at 11 a.m. and ended at noon, so the evangelists 
mean that the eclipse began before noon. This agrees with 
St. Luke's words, “ It was almost the sixth hour.” 

This precise statement regarding the beginning of the darkness makes it 
easier for us to determine the hour when Christ was nailed to the cross. 
The difficulty arises from the fact that according to St. Mark our Lord was 
crucified at the third hour, while according to St. John it was not until the 
sixth hour that Pilate took up his position on the judgment seat, in order 
formally to pronounce the death sentence, after all his attempts to save 
Jesus had failed. These attempts have been already discussed in the sec¬ 
tion Ecce Homo, and we are here concerned only with the question as to 
which of the two probable explanations is preferable. If we assume that 


1 C. 23; Tisch. 192. 

2 Hierosolymis, commemoratio S. Latronis, qui in cruce Christum con- 
fessus ab eo meruit audire: Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso. In his Anno¬ 
tations Baronius adds: Reperiuntur autem S. Dismae latronis nomini non- 
nulla sacella dicata et memoriae erecta eodem titulo. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


225 


St. Mark, in speaking of the third hour, referred not to a definite hour of 
the day, but rather to the period between 9 a.m. and noon, which the Jews 
called the third hour of prayer, and if we assume, too, that when St. John 
speaks of the sixth hour he used the Jewish reckoning, 1 we arrive at the 
conclusion that the death sentence was not pronounced until a little after 
11 a.m. and that the crucifixion followed just before noon. But the dark¬ 
ness began at noon, and, before it set in, Jesus had been hanging for a con¬ 
siderable time on the cross; consequently there seems to be no time left 
for the walk to Golgotha, the setting up of the three crosses, the partition 
of our Lord’s garments, and the scenes of mockery. This being the case, 
it must be admitted that those commentators are probably right who think 
that St. John used the Roman reckoning of time, and that, when he says the 
sixth hour of the day, he means 6 a.m. St. John does not say at or during 
the sixth hour, but about the sixth hour, so we may assign the events 
hitherto discussed to the following hours: Jesus was formally condemned 
to death about 7 a.m.; during the third hour, i.e., about 9 a.m., He was 
crucified; and from the sixth hour until the ninth (i.e., from noon until 
3 p.m.) there was darkness. During the period of almost three hours, 
while Jesus had been hanging on the cross, the following events had oc¬ 
curred: (1) His garments were divided among the Roman soldiers; (2) He 
was mocked by the people, the Sanhedrists, the soldiers, and the thief on 
His left hand; (3) the penitent thief acknowledged his guilt and asked 
for mercy; (4) our Lord uttered the first two words on the cross. 

A special treatise would be required for the full discussion 
of the nature, extent, and significance of the darkness that 
lasted during our Saviour’s death agony. Bynaeus introduces his 
dissertation on the subject with the words: primum prodigium 
divinitus factum, quo Jesu gloria, dum in cruce penderet adhuc 
vivus summaque integritas asserta evidenter est, tenebrae ortae 
ipso meridie, quo dies solet esse clarissimus, fuerunt . 2 Only the 
three synoptic evangelists record the darkness; St. Matthew 
and St. Mark both say, “ there was darkness/’ without stating 
explicitly that it was due to an eclipse. According, however, to 
the received Greek text of St. Luke, with which the Vulgate 
version agrees, “ there was darkness over all the earth until the 
ninth hour. And the sun was darkened.” The statement re¬ 
garding the darkness over all the earth precedes that regarding 
the sun, and both in the Greek and in the Vulgate the two state¬ 
ments are separated by a full stop. This reading has led many 
commentators to suppose that the darkness was due to some 
unusual atmospheric condition, which preceded the earthquake 
and had some casual connection with it; that the air became 
so dense that the sun’s light was completely obscured. Origen 


Compare Acts ii. 15; iii. 1; x. 9. 


3 Bynaeus, III, 8, 1-4. 



226 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


expresses the opinion, tenebrosissimae nubes concurrentes super 
terram Judaeam et Jerusalem ad cooperiendos radios soils. He 
refers again to this view when discussing the correct reading 
of the passage in St. Luke, which we shall have occasion to 
notice in our next paragraph. 

The text of the best Greek manuscript that is accepted by 
Tischendorf, and by Westcott and Hort, two English scholars, 
runs thus: “ There was darkness over all the earth until the ninth 
hour, since the sun ceased to give his light.^ Origen was aware 
of this reading, but it did not commend itself to him, because 
it was not in agreement with his theory as to the cause of the 
darkness over the earth. 1 There is, however, good documentary 
evidence in support of it, and it plainly ascribes the darkness 
to an eclipse of the sun. Now an eclipse of the sun cannot in 
the natural course of events occur when the moon is full, which 
was the case at the time of Christ’s crucifixion. According to 
the Acts of Pilate, the procurator pointed out this fact to the 
Sanhedrists, and referred to the miraculous eclipse and the 
rending of the veil of the temple as evidence that Jesus had been 
a just man. When the Jews remarked that the darkness was 
due to an eclipse of the sun, such as had taken place on other 
occasions, Pilate replied, “ Yesterday, on the fourteenth day of 
the month, you slew the Pasch, and yet you assert that an 
eclipse of the sun has occurred.” 2 We may arrive at the fol¬ 
lowing conclusion, after carefully considering the matter: The 
darkness that covered the earth at the time of Christ’s cruci¬ 
fixion was produced, not by any atmospheric processes preced¬ 
ing the earthquake, but by a real though miraculous eclipse of 
the sun. This conclusion is supported by (i) the earliest and 
best manuscripts of St. Luke’s gospel; (2) the fact that no 
natural eclipse could occur when the moon was full, as was the 
case during the Jewish Pasch; (3) the long duration of the 
darkness, with regard to which the three evangelists are 
agreed; (4) the historical events at Golgotha that accompanied 
the darkness. In his Commentary on St. Matthew, St. Jerome 

1 Orig. in Matth., Tract. 35 : quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur: 

tenebrae factae sunt et obscuratus est sol, sed ita: tenebrae factae sunt 
super omnem terram sole deficiente. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi 
manifestos aliquid dicere volens, pro: et obscuratus est ponere: deficiente 
sole existimans, quod non aliter potuissent fieri tenebrae, nisi sole deficiente. 

2 Acta Pilati, A. xi. 2; B. xi. 2. Compare Tisch. pp. 249 and 310. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


227 


alludes to points (2) and (3) in order to prove that the eclipse 
of the sun was miraculous. It is impossible to do more than 
offer suggestions as to the manner in which God so overruled 
the course of nature as to bring about an eclipse. It may be of 
interest to quote in this connection a passage from the Epistle 
to Polycarp by the Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, which is 
mentioned in a manuscript of the Acta Pilati. 1 It runs as 
follows: eramus tunc (sc. tempore tenebrarum) ambo apud 
Heliopolim, amboque simul incidentem mirabiliter soli lunae 
globuni notabamus (non enim ejusce conjunctions tunc aderat 
tempus) ipsamque rursus ab hora nona ad vesperam ad solis 
diaw,etrum supra naturae vires restitutam. 

The evangelists, in speaking of the extent of the darkness, 
use the word yv= terra, which may mean the whole earth, but 
need not necessarily be taken in that sense, for it may equally 
well be regarded as referring to the whole land of Palestine. 

That this is probably the correct interpretation seems likely, 
because the evangelists employ other words to denote the entire 
world. Commentators are divided in opinion; the majority 
think that the darkness either certainly or probably extended 
over the whole world, but others restrict it to Palestine. 2 3 

The symbolical significance of the darkness, of which we shall 
speak shortly, may be considered as a further argument in 
support of the latter view. 

Some commentators, both ancient and modern, who believe that the 
darkness was universal, identify it with an extraordinary occurrence men¬ 
tioned by the historian Phlegon. Phlegon, 8 a freedman of Hadrian, in his 
great work on the Olympiads, remarks that in the fourth year of the two 
hundred and second Olympiad there was a great darkness, surpassing all 
that had occurred before. About midday it grew so dark that the stars were 
seen in the sky, and a great earthquake at the same time destroyed many 
houses at Nicaea in Bithynia. 4 We may also notice a statement made by 
Tertullian, 5 to the effect that the Roman archives contained a record of a 
world-wide darkness such as Phlegon describes. 

The symbolical interpretation of the darkness is obvious. 
In Biblical language light is a type of Christ and His doc- 


1 Tisch. Evang. apocr. 310, note. 

2 Orig. in Matth., Tract. 35: tantummodo super omnen terrain Ju- 
daeam aut certe super Jerusalem tantum; Maid, and others. 

3 Compare Baronius, Ann. ad a. 35 , n - I20 - 

4 Euseb. Chron. ann. 33. 

5 Apol. C. 21. 


4 




228 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


trine of joy and of salvation, 1 and in the same way darkness 
stands for misery, fear of God’s visitations, 2 and the spiritual 
gloom of ignorance and immorality with all its attendant 
unhappiness. 3 

Thus the darkness at our Lord’s crucifixion symbolized the 
fact that by crucifying their Master, who bore witness to being 
the Light of the World, the Jews had ceased to be the chosen 
people, and abandoned themselves to the spiritual darkness of 
sin and error, so that they would have to answer for their deeds 
before the terrible tribunal of God. 

The women standing beside the cross. Our Lord’s third 
word on the cross. When Jesus spoke for the third time, He 
addressed His Mother and His beloved disciple St. John, as 
the latter himself tells us. 4 The fourth evangelist alone men¬ 
tions Our Lady in connection with the Passion, and says that 
she stood with other women beside the cross on which the 
Saviour of the World was dying. According to the Acts of 
Pilate John had brought Mary the news that Jesus was con¬ 
demned to death. Together they hurried after the procession, 
and when Mary caught sight of her divine Son, with His hands 
bound and the crown of thorns upon His head, she fell fainting 
to the ground and remained for some time unconscious. Tradi¬ 
tion says that the meeting between our Lord and His mother, 
the fourth Station of the Cross, occurred at the spot where the 
so-called Street of Mary joins the Via Dolorosa. 5 St. John says 
“ There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother’s 
sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.” This state¬ 
ment is almost universally interpreted as referring to three 
women, viz.: (i) Mary, the mother of Jesus; (2) Mary, who 
is described both as Our Lady’s sister and as the wife of Cle¬ 
ophas (Alphaeus); (3) Mary Magdalen. Alphaeus is only a 
softer pronunciation of the Aramaic name from which the 
Greek form Clopas or Cleophas is derived. “Mary of Cle¬ 
ophas” may mean daughter or wife; the latter is preferable, 
because St. Mark calls this Mary “the mother of James the 

1 John i. q; viii. 12; Matthew iv. 16; Luke i. 78; and frequently in the 
Old Testament. 

2 Isa. viii. 22; Job xviii. 5; Am. v. 18; Joel ii. 2. 

* Suidas: irapa rr\ deia ypa<f>ij irore fikp ^ Ayvota ttotc al crv/upopal, 

4 xix. 25-27. 

6 Compare Socin. 93. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


229 


Less,” 1 and in the lists of the apostles 2 James the Less is 
termed “son of Alphaeus.” 

In order to distinguish this mother of James from Our Lady 
she is also called “ the other Mary.” 8 

Some modern scholars assume that St. John mentions not three, but 
four women, and the punctuation of the text edited by Westcott and Hort 
shows that these commentators have adopted this view. It runs thus: 
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother’s sis¬ 
ter, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen.” In this way we 
have four women, mentioned in pairs, the first pair being Mary, the Mother 
of Jesus, and her sister, whose name is not recorded; the second pair being 
Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen. Two arguments are ad¬ 
vanced in support of this theory: viz., (1) two sisters would not have borne 
the same name, and there is no justification for assuming that the word 
“ sister ” is used in the wider sense of “ sister-in-law (2) the usual inter¬ 
pretation destroys the balance of the sentence, as according to it the other 
Mary is mentioned twice, in connection first with her sister, and afterwards 
with her husband. Moreover, some scholars claim to have discovered the 
name of Our Lady’s sister. St. Matthew 4 and St. Mark 6 state that among 
the women who stood far from the cross were Mary Magdalen, Mary the 
mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee; the 
last mentioned was Salome; consequently the sister of the mother of Jesus 
(as St. John calls her) has been identified with Salome, who is termed by 
the synoptic evangelists the mother of the sons of Zebedee, James and 
John. Those who adopt this identification urge that it is probably correct, 
because St. John, in suppressing his mother’s name, was only following his 
usual course and did not allude to himself explicitly. The whole argument, 
however, breaks down in face of the fact that there is no ecclesiastical tra¬ 
dition in support of any relationship between our Lord and the sons of 
Zebedee, and therefore we cannot put any such interpretation upon the pas¬ 
sage in question. 


Mary was with her divine Son when for the first time He 
manifested His power at Cana in Galilee, and confirmed the 
truth of the testimony as to His being indeed the Son of God. 6 
She was again with Him when, as God-Man, He completed 
His work of redemption while hanging in the deepest humilia¬ 
tion on the cross. The agony that she endured at the foot of 
the cross constituted that spiritual martyrdom which the aged 
Simeon had foretold when he said, “thy own soul a sword shall 
pierce,” 7 and this agony was greater than any physical suffer¬ 
ings could have been. 8 At the same time the sight of His 
mother’s suffering intensified that of our Lord, so that every- 


1 

3 

5 

8 


Mark xv. 40. 8 Matthew x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13. 

Compare Matthew xxvii. 16; xxviii. 1. * xxvii. 56. 

xv . 40. 8 John ii. 1. 7 Luke 11. 35 - 

Anselmus, de excellentia Virginis, c. 5. 




2 3 o THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

thing contributed to fill up the measure of His misery. The 
three women standing by the cross are often regarded as repre¬ 
sentatives of three classes of believers: Mary Magdalen is the 
penitent, just entering upon the way of perfection; Mary of 
Cleophas represents those who have advanced farther, while 
Our Lady herself has attained to perfection. At every stage of 
their journey along the path of virtue it behooves Christians 
to look up to the cross with faith and confidence. Jesus had 
already displayed His boundless charity toward His enemies 
by praying for them; now at the moment of death He teaches 
us how great and sacred a duty is filial love; for, before He 
passed away, He entrusted His mother to St. John, that he 
might lavish on her the care and love of a son, and at the same 
time He bestowed upon His favorite disciple a tender mother. 

In his little work “ The Seven Words of Christ on the Cross ” 
Cardinal Bellarmine points out very beautifully how< our Lord, 
when hanging on the cross, and His mother, when standing be¬ 
side it, teach us the duties of good parents and children toward 
one another. 1 Some commentators give to this episode a still 
deeper significance, and say that in the person of St. John the 
whole Church received Mary as its mother, and when she ac¬ 
cepted him as her son she accepted all the faithful as her chil¬ 
dren. The reason why the beloved disciple was chosen, rather 
than another, for the honor of being her protector, is stated by 
St. Jerome in the words: a Domino virgine mater virgo virgini 
discipulo commendatur . The fact that our Lord entrusted His 
mother to St. John's care shows that the so-called brethren of 
Jesus were not actually His brothers and also that St. Joseph 
had already died at the time of the crucifixion. 

The fourth word on the cross. This fourth word, and no 
other, is recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark. It is, “ Eli, 
Eli, lamma sabacthani? My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me?" and is a direct quotation from a Messianic 
Psalm, 2 in which the Psalmist describes the intense suffering 
endured by the Messiah, His eventual deliverance, and the con¬ 
versation of the Gentiles as a result of His agony. Both evan¬ 
gelists say that our Saviour uttered this mournful cry about the 
ninth hour, i.e., at 3 p.m., and both give His words as well in 


1 L. 1, c. ii. 


xxi. 2. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


231 


the Aramaic tongue, sanctified by His use, as in the Greek. Our 
Lord’s voice and the form and meaning of the words revealed 
His intense sorrow of mind and anguish of body. The evan¬ 
gelists tell us that He cried with a loud voice, and repeated His 
cry, “My God,” and finally complained of being forsaken. 1 

We may here refer briefly to the torture caused by crucifixion. That it 
was a most painful form of death is proved by the fact that even the un¬ 
feeling Romans called it the most cruel and agonizing punishment. An 
eighteenth-century physician, Christian Gottlieb Richter, devoted a work to 
the description of the pain of crucifixion. 2 The unnatural position, the sit¬ 
ting upon the narrow sedile, and the outstretched arms were in themselves 
enough to cause intolerable suffering, which was intensified by every attempt 
to move. Moreover, the nails were driven through the hands and feet just 
at the spots where many highly sensitive nerves meet and the huge wounds 
soon became intensely inflamed, and were enlarged by the weight of the 
body. In addition there was almost intolerable thirst, due to the loss of 
blood and perspiration. The rush of blood to the head gave rise to a ter¬ 
rible headache, and the disturbances in the circulation of the blood were at¬ 
tended with the greatest discomfort. 

Our Lord’s fearful suffering upon the cross forced from His 
lips the cry, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” This is not an 
expression of despair, for Jesus appealed to God as “ My God,” 
and with complete submission commended His soul to His 
heavenly Father. In what sense, then, was He forsaken on the 
cross? He was enduring extreme anguish both of mind and 
body, and in His human nature He received comfort and alle¬ 
viation neither from His own divine nature, nor from His 
Father in heaven. This deprivation occurred in consequence 
of God’s design for our salvation, which required the Incarnate 
Son of God to experience the deepest humiliation, and to bear 
the greatest possible agony of mind and body for the salvation 
of mankind. Our Lord’s question, “ Why hast thou forsaken 
me ? ” suggests that He, though innocent, had to suffer for the 
sins of men, and that the burden of human guilt weighed down, 
as it were, His sacred body, causing Him the distress and fear 
that found natural expression in the complaint of being for¬ 
saken. Many commentators think that Jesus uttered this cry 
in the name of sinful humanity, estranged from and forsaken 
by God. 3 

1 It has been thought that our Lord repeated, or at least had in mind, the 
entire psalm, with its triumphant ending. 

2 Dissertationes quatuor medicae, Gottingen, 1775. 

3 Maid, describes this interpretation as receptissima. 




a 3 2 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

The fifth word on the cross. The fifth word uttered by our 
Lord on the cross is recorded by St. John, who remarks, by way 
of preface, that Jesus knew all things were now accomplished, 
i.e., He had finished the work of redemption, for which He 
had become Man. The word rereXea-rcu is used by anticipation; 
our Lord regarded the impending conclusion of His Messianic 
activity as already existing. The introductory words, “Jesus, 
knowing that all things were now accomplished,” indicate the 
reason why at that moment He uttered the cry that had al¬ 
ready been foretold, “ I thirst.” It was because He knew that 
the work of redemption was all but accomplished that He said, 
“ I thirst,” in order to fulfill in every detail the prophecies re¬ 
lating to the sufferings of the Messiah. 

Parching thirst, due to loss of blood and fever produced by 
the wounds, was, as we said above, one of the great sufferings 
in crucifixion, and this was the primary reason why Jesus, after 
hanging for nearly six hours on the cross, exclaimed, “ I thirst.” 
But St. John reveals the ultimate underlying cause of the cry. 
A Messianic prophecy regarding this detail in our Lord’s Pas¬ 
sion still awaited fulfillment. He had in view the Psalmist’s 
words, “ in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,” 1 “ My 
strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath 
cleaved to my jaws.” 2 Our Lord’s burning thirst is often 
taken as a symbol of His ardent desire for the salvation of 
men. 

Vinegar is offered to Jesus just before His death. This fact 
is recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, whose ac¬ 
counts supplement one another, and, taken collectively, supply 
a full description of what took place. The order of events is 
as follows: When Jesus uttered His cry of desolation, “Eli, 
Eli,” some of the bystanders said that He was calling for Elias. 
These were probably Jews, and their remark reveals their con¬ 
tempt and mocking spirit. His pitiless foes gave expression 
to their hatred even at the moment when Jesus was at the point 
of death; they jeered at the helplessness of One who professed 
to be the Messiah, and they suggested that He called for Elias 
to save Him, since He could not save Himself—though, as they 
meant to insinuate, such an appeal must necessarily be unavail- 


1 Ps. lxviii. 22. 


3 Ps. xxi. 15. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


233 


mg’, because Elias would put in an appearance for none but the 
true Messiah. In order fully to understand their mockery, we 
must remember that, according to the Jews’ interpretation of 
Mai. Iv. 5, the return of Elias was expected before the first 
coming of the Messiah, whereas, according to the correct inter¬ 
pretation of the passage, Elias the Theobite is to appear only 
before our Lord’s second coming. While the Jews, by wilfully 
misinterpreting the words “ Eli, Eli,” were ridiculing our dying 
Lord, He uttered the cry, “ I thirst,” which is recorded only by 
St. John, and gave rise to fresh mockery. There are some slight 
discrepancies in the accounts given by the various evangelists, 
but they can easily be reconciled. For elucidation of the whole 
proceeding, St. John introduces his report with the remark, 
“ Now there was a vessel set there, full of vinegar.” 

Vinegar and sponge belonged to the equipment for crucifixion, for the 
purpose of reviving the crucified if they fainted from weakness and pain. 
The object was to keep them conscious and thus to increase their suffering. 
That vinegar and sponge were not there for the soldiers is obvious, as they 
certainly did not drink by means of a sponge. It is a debated point whether 
the drink was offered to Jesus by a Jew or by a Roman soldier. St. John says 
that they put the sponge to His mouth, but St. Matthew and St. Mark speak 
of one man; there is, however, no difficulty here; St. John says in a general 
way that the sponge was put to our Lord’s mouth, and the other two evangel¬ 
ists speak of the man who performed the action. St. Matthew says that one 
of them ran and took a sponge. As there seems to be a reference to the per¬ 
sons standing round the cross, some of whom had been mocking Jesus with 
the words “ This man calleth Elias . . . ,” and since these speakers were un¬ 
doubtedly Jews, it has been assumed that the man who offered the vinegar 
to Jesus was a Jew and not a Roman soldier. The remark about the com¬ 
ing of Elias shows that the speakers were familiar with the Jewish antici¬ 
pation of the prophet’s return. On the other hand, most commentators, as 
far as they discuss the point at all, think that it was probably, if not cer¬ 
tainly, a Roman soldier whq held the sponge dipped in vinegar to our Lord’s 
lips. Bynaeus reasons thus: The expression “ one of them ” refers to the 
people assembled round the cross, amongst whom the Roman soldiers, being 
the guards, occupied a prominent position, and St. Luke indicates that the 
man who offered Jesus vinegar was a Roman, not a Jew. 1 This reasoning 
is correct if St. Luke refers to the same scene of mockery as the other 
evangelists, but there is a weighty argument against assuming such to be 
the case. St. Luke is, as a rule, most accurate on points of chronology, and 
he speaks of Jesus as being mocked by Roman soldiers immediately after 
He was nailed to the cross, before the sixth hour, whereas the mockery de¬ 
scribed by the other evangelists occurred just before our Lord’s death. 
We cannot decide with certainty whether the vinegar was offered to Jesus 
by a Roman soldier or by a Jew. 


1 Bynaeus, III, 8, 8. 



234 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

A man, whether a Jew or a Roman soldier is therefore un¬ 
certain, took a sponge, dipped it in a vessel full of vinegar, that 
was standing in readiness, and put it on a rod of hyssop, in 
order thus to reach our Lord’s mouth. According to St. Mat¬ 
thew some of those present tried to stop him, and said with a 
sneer, “Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to deliver 
him ”; the man, however, as St. Mark tells us, replied, “ Stay 
[i.e., do not hinder me], let us see if Elias come to take him 
down,” and he proceeded to hold the sponge to the lips of 
Jesus, who, according to St. John, accepted the drink. The 
man’s words were uttered in jest; he wished to prolong our 
Lord’s life, so as to give Elias more time to come and 
take Him down. Baronins thinks that both the vinegar 
and the hyssop would have the effect of arresting the flow 
of blood. 1 As hyssop never grows to any great height, St. 
John here furnishes us with an indication of the height of the 
cross. 

The sixth word on the cross. St. John alone records the 
sixth utterance of our Lord on the cross: “ It is consummated.” 
Our Saviour referred primarily to the end of His earthly life 
and to the hour of His departure from this world, but there 
was a far deeper, secondary meaning; He declared that He had 
accomplished the task that He had come to perform, and in 
His life and actions had fulfilled all the prophecies regarding 
the Messiah. “It is consummated,” for He had offered the 
Sacrifice of which the sacrifices in the Old Testament were but 
types; and thus He had deposed the devil from his dominion 
over the world, and effected the reconciliation of mankind with 
God. 2 Consummatum est, namely, all that which Luke (xviii. 
31) expresses in the words: “All things shall be accomplished 
which were written by the prophets concerning the Son of 
Man.” (Quod nisi quod prophetia tanto ante praedixerat, 
St. Augustine.) 

The seventh word on the cross. After our Saviour had 
said, “ It is consummated,” He cried out with a loud voice, as 
St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us: the former inserts the word 
“again,” which shows that this was the second loud cry, and 
St. Luke has recorded the words thus uttered, “ Father, into 


1 Ann. ad a. 34, n. 124-126. 

a Compare Bellarmine, de septem verbis, 2, 12. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


2 35 


thy hands I commend my spirit.” Many commentators see in 
this utterance a declaration that Jesus submitted voluntarily 
to the divine scheme for the salvation of men, according to 
which it was necessary for the Son of God to die. 1 

The seventh word on the cross is again a quotation from 
the Psalms, 2 spoken first by David, a type of Christ, when, 
owing to Saul’s hostility, he was encompassed by dangers. The 
words received their full meaning on our Lord’s lips. After 
declaring that the work of redemption was completed, He 
addressed His Father in heaven, saying, “ Father, thou didst 
send me forth to do thy will among men; now, having finished 
my work I commend my spirit into thy hands.” In spite of 
His profound humiliation, the moment was at hand when His 
prayer would be granted: “l have glorified thee on earth, I 
have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. Now 
glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which 
I had before the world was, with thee.” 3 Our Lord’s last word 
on the cross should be the last prayer at night on the lips of 
every Christian, for it is sanctified by our Saviour’s use, and 
helps us to spend each day in the faithful discharge of the duties 
that our heavenly Father requires of us. The Church employs 
the same words in her commendatio animae: “ To Thee, O Lord, 
we commend the soul of this Thy servant, that, being dead to 
the world, he may live to Thee.” 

Having uttered the last words our divine Lord bowed His 
head and gave up the ghost. The evangelists all use such positive 
language regarding His death, that it is impossible to question 
its reality. We may notice that in St. John’s account “ bow¬ 
ing his head, he gave up the ghost,” there is a quite definite 
allusion to the death of the Messiah as being voluntary and an 
act of obedience. St. Augustine says: quis ita dormit quando 
voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? quis ita vestem 
ponit quando voluerit, sicut se came exuit quando voluit? quis 
ita cum voluerit obit, quomodo cum voluit obiitf quanta spe - 


1 Jansenius follows St. John Chrysostom and remarks that Jesus cried 
with a loud voice: in argumentum superstitis in eo roboris, ut videlicet tes¬ 

tatum redderet, se non defectu virium mori, ut contingit Us, qui lenta morte 
moriuntur, sed vitam et mortem esse in sua plena et libera potestate, sicut 
de se ipso asseverat. 

3 Ps. xxx.,6. 

3 John xvii. 4 » 5 - 




236 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

randa vel timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit tanta 
morientis? 1 

Epitome of our Lord’s seven words on the cross, i. The 

first word: “ Father, forgive them, for they know not what 
they do.” This word was spoken before the darkness set in; 
it is recorded only by St. Luke (xxiii. 34). 

2. The second word: “Amen I say to thee, this day thou 
shalt be with me in paradise.” This word was also spoken 
before the darkness, and is recorded by St. Luke (xxiii. 43). 

3. This and the following words were uttered during the 
period of darkness: “Woman, behold thy son,” “Behold thy 
mother.” Recorded by St. John (xix. 26, 27). 

4. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The 
words are a quotation from Ps. xxi. 2, which is unmistakably 
Messianic, and are recorded by St. Matthew (xxvii. 46) and 
St. Mark (xv. 34). 

5. “ I thirst.” This is also a quotation from a Psalm (lxviii. 
22) and is recorded by St. John (xix. 28). 

6. “It is consummated,” recorded by St. John (xix. 30). 

7. “ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” This is 
a quotation from Ps. xxx. 6 and is recorded only by St. Luke 
(xxiii. 46). 

Thus of the seven words St. Luke records three (1, 2, 7) ; 
St. John also three (3, 5, 6); St. Matthew and St. Mark each 
one (4). The fourth, fifth, and seventh words are quotations 
from the Psalms. 

It has been suggested that the fourth and fifth words of our Lord be 
interchanged to explain better the order of events. The first three words 
were spoken at the beginning of His crucifixion and of the torments on the 
cross; then silence followed till shortly before His death. The silence was 
broken by the fifth word, “I thirst,” yet the vinegar that was offered to 
Him was, according to Matthew and Mark, given on the misinterpretation 
of the fourth word: “Eli, Eli, . . .” (Matthew xxvii. 48 and Mark xv. 36, 
evdius Spa/xtiv, then at once, . . .). This close connection between the offer¬ 
ing of the vinegar and the purposely misinterpreted invocation of Elias 
would be lost if we put the word “ I thirst ” after the cry of dereliction. 
Thus perhaps the order of events was the following: when Jesus com¬ 
plained “ I thirst,” His complaint was disregarded, perhaps because He had 
refused to drink before His crucifixion. When, however, shortly after that 
our Lord cried out: “Eli, Eli, . . .,” one of the soldiers ran to quench his 
thirst in order to prolong his life, to see whether Elias would come, or 
rather, to show that Elias would not come. Thus the soldier himself, with 


1 Tract, in Joann. 119, 6. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 237 

some others, explains the action, when an objection was raised to his giving 
the vinegar: Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to deliver Him ” 
And on that remark they all agreed, as John xix. 29 testifies. After this, in 
quick succession the sixth and seventh words were spoken. 


III. Wonderful Events that Followed our 
Lord's Death 


Matthew xxvii. 51-56 

51. And behold the veil of the 
temple was rent in two from the 
top even to the bottom, and the earth 
quaked and the rocks were rent. 

52. And the graves were opened: 
and many bodies of the saints that 
had slept arose. 

53- And coming out of the tombs 
after his resurrection, came into the 
holy city, and appeared to many. 

54. Now the centurion and they 
that were with him watching Jesus, 
having seen the earthquake and the 
things that were done, were sore 
afraid, saying: Indeed this was the 
Son of God. 

55. And there were many women 
afar off, who had followed Jesus 
from Galilee, ministering unto him. 

56. Among whom was Mary Mag¬ 
dalen, and Mary the mother of 
James and Joseph, and the mother 
of the sons of Zebedee. 


Mark xv. 38-41 

38. And the veil of the temple 
was rent in two, from the top to the 
bottom. 

39* And the centurion who stood 
over against him, seeing that crying 
out in this manner he had given up 
the ghost, said: Indeed this man was 
the Son of God. 

40. And there were also women 
looking on afar off: among whom 
was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the 
mother of James the less and of 
Joseph, and Salome; 

41. Who also when he was in 
Galilee, followed him, and ministered 
to him, and many other women that 
came up with him to Jerusalem. 


Luke xxiii. 45, 47-49 


45. And the veil of the temple 
was rent in the midst. 

47. Now the centurion seeing 
what was done, glorified God, say¬ 
ing: Indeed this was a just man. 

48. And all the multitude of them 
that were come together to that 


sight, and saw the things that were 
done, returned striking their breasts. 

49. And all his acquaintance and 
women that had followed him from 
Galilee, stood afar off beholding 
these things. 


General remarks. About six months before His Passion and 
Death our Saviour addressed the following solemn words to 
the unbelieving Jews: “ When you shall have lifted up the Son 
of Man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing 
of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I 
speak.” 1 In these words He foretold that the events after His 


John viii. 28. 







238 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

death would force the Jews to recognize Him as the Messiah, 
although in their unbelief they still refused to do so. The cru¬ 
cified Son of Man is the Messiah, and His works and doctrine 
are divine. No sooner had the Jews nailed their Messiah to the 
cross than the significant events prophetically foretold began 
to happen. Only the synoptic evangelists describe these events, 
and their accounts stand in the following relation to one another. 
St. Matthew’s account is the fullest; he speaks of the rending 
of the temple veil, the earthquake, the cleaving of the rocks, 
the resurrection and appearance of many deceased pious per¬ 
sons, and, finally, he records the testimony borne by the Gentile 
centurion. St. Mark and St. Luke allude to the first and last 
of these things, and the latter mentions the rending of the 
temple veil as occurring before our Lord’s death. 

The rending of the veil of the Temple. St. Matthew con¬ 
nects this occurrence very closely with the death of Christ, as 
a most extraordinary event caused by the crucifixion. Nothing 
in his account justifies the assumption that the veil was tom 
by the violent motion 1 produced by the earthquake; it was rent 
from top to bottom in consequence of our Lord’s death. 

There were two curtains or veils in the temple, one of which cut off the 
Holy Place from the Court of the Priests, while the other separated the 
Holy of Holies from the Holy Place. In the New Testament the word here 
used for veil is elsewhere used always of the curtain in front of the Holy 
of Holies; therefore we must understand that it bears the same meaning 
here, and that the curtain rent was the inner, and not the outer one, al¬ 
though some early commentators have adopted the contrary opinion. From 
the Epistle to the Hebrews 2 we can gather the symbolical significance of 
the rending of the veil of the temple: it indicated that the old dispensation 
was ended by the death of Christ on the cross, and its place was taken by 
His Church, whereby Heaven, the Holy of Holies, was opened to the human 
race. This interpretation bears out the theory that the inner curtain was 
the one rent. Thenceforth it was only a question of time until the Jewish 
temple, having lost its importance, vanished from the face of the earth. 

The earthquake and cleaving of the rocks. St. Matthew 
speaks of these things as marking the moment of Christ’s death. 
Many commentators think that the whole world was affected by 
the earthquake, as it also had been covered with darkness during 
our Lord’s agony. St. Cyril of Jerusalem ( ob . 386 a.d.) tells 
us that it was still possible to see the cracks in the road at 

1 Lyranus: ad motum terrae et aeris scissum est. 

2 vi. 19; viii. 1 seqq.; ix. 1 seqq.; x. 2. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 239 

Golgotha that originated at the death of Christ. He speaks of 
“ this sacred, conspicuous Golgotha, visible at the present day, 
which still displays the clefts produced long ago on account of 
Christ.” 1 Rufinus 2 has preserved a similar statement made 
by Lucian the martyr. There can be no doubt that the violent 
earthquake, connected with and caused by the death of Christ, 
symbolized the meaning of His death both to believers and to 
the Jews who refused to believe in Him. In the Old Testa¬ 
ment an earthquake heralded the approach of God, 3 and marked 
the imminence of God’s judgments, 4 and this enables us to 
understand the symbolic significance of this natural phenomenon 
at the crucifixion: (1) inanimate nature thus gave expression 
to its sorrow at the ruthless murder of the Lord; (2) the un¬ 
believing Jews were warned of God’s wrath and of their com¬ 
ing chastisement; (3) additional evidence was furnished to the 
faithful that Jesus hanging on the cross was indeed the God- 
Man, the Lord of nature, and that the grace flowing from the 
cross would reform the stony hearts of men. 5 

The opening of the graves and resurrection of the dead. An¬ 
other marvellous occurrence was that the graves were opened, 
and many bodies of saints arose, and, coming out of the tombs 
after our Lord’s resurrection, came into Jerusalem and ap¬ 
peared to many. This passage involves several difficulties. St. 
Matthew connects the opening of the graves with the earth¬ 
quake, but goes on to say that the bodies of the saints came out 
of the tombs and appeared in Jerusalem after Christ’s resurrec¬ 
tion. It seems, therefore, that some time elapsed between the 
awakening of the ancient saints and their coming forth from 
the tombs. As Christ is quite definitely termed “ the first fruits 
of them that sleep,” 6 “the first born from the dead,” 7 “the 
first-begotten of the dead,” 8 we cannot but believe that the 
awakening of the saints and their issuing from the tombs 
occurred simultaneously, both, however, after our Lord’s, resur- 


1 Catech. 13, 39. 

3 H. E. 9, 6. _ . c. t \ •• 

8 Compare Ps. lxvii. 8; xcvm. 1; cxm. 6; Joel 11. 10. 

4 Ps. xvii. 9; Joel iii. 16. 

5 Jerome: commovenda terrea et saxea corda ad poemtentiam ; compare 
also Tirinus, who sums up the various interpretations. 

6 1 Cor. xv. 20. 

’ Col. i. 18. 

8 Apoc. i. 5 * 




240 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

rection. Therefore we must assume that the evangelist men¬ 
tions the rising of the dead before it actually took place, being 
led to do so by the fact that he had just spoken of the opening 
of the graves. That this is the correct interpretation seems 
certain, for the awakened saints could not have remained in 
their tombs until after Christ’s resurrection. The sequence of 
events is as follows: The graves were opened immediately after 
and in consequence of our Lord’s death, but the awakening and 
appearance of the ancient saints are connected with His resur¬ 
rection, and took place after it. 1 

There are three distinct theories regarding the interpretation 
to be put upon the awakening and appearance of the dead. 
According to one, the souls were clad not in real, but in merely 
apparent bodies. The unusual Greek word employed in the 
account does not, however, bear out this theory, since its use 
would be perfectly justifiable in an account of an extraordinary 
event. The theory is, moreover, in conflict with the wording 
of the narrative, which speaks of the bodies of the awakened 
saints as rising again. According to another interpretation, the 
dead rose with their glorified bodies, and afterwards both in 
body and soul entered the glory of heaven together with Christ, 
so that they already enjoy that completeness which will be be¬ 
stowed upon the rest of the righteous only at the end of the 
world. 2 In support of this view its advocates draw attention 
to the connection between this event and Christ’s glorious resur¬ 
rection, to the use of the expressions, “that had slept” and 
“arose,” which elsewhere denote the resurrection of the body 
at the last day, and to the verb knepavl^eadaL. (Knabenbauer 
lays particular stress upon this last point.) On the other hand 
some scholars 3 believe that the saints rose with their actual, not 
their glorified, bodies and lived for a time, only to die again, 
so that like ourselves they are still awaiting their glorious resur¬ 
rection at our Lord’s return. St. Augustine refers in support 
of this view to Heb. xi. 39, 40: “And all these, being approved 
by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God provid- 

1 Thus most commentators; a few think that the tombs were not opened 
until after Christ’s resurrection. 

2 Orig., Epiph., Clemens Alex., Jerome, Maid., Corn, a Lap., Tir., Laurent 
(somewhat dubiously). 

3 August. Ep. 164, 9, ad Evodium (Ml. 33, 714) ; Theophyl., Euthym., 
Salmeron. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


241 


ing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected 
without us” St. Augustine takes the last words as referring 
exclusively to the perfection of mankind at the last day. Others 
urge that, in spite of the Apostle’s words, an exception may 
have been made on the occasion of Christ’s resurrection. 1 As 
the Bible narrative supplies no conclusive reasons for adopting 
one of the last two interpretations rather than the other, and 
as tradition leaves the matter uncertain, we cannot determine the 
manner in which the saints arose at our Lord’s resurrection. 
The event is, however, in itself a proof that we have risen from 
the death of sin by the merits of Christ’s death, 2 and that on 
the last day we, too, shall arise with our glorified bodies. 3 

Not only was inanimate nature shaken and disturbed when 
its Lord died upon the cross, but also the people present at the 
place of crucifixion were deeply moved and alarmed. All the 
three evangelists speak of the impression made upon the cen¬ 
turion who had supervised the execution. St. Matthew alone 
says that the soldiers were similarly affected, while only St. Luke 
mentions that the crowds present expressed their sorrow. 
Already at the foot of the cross began the fulfillment of the 
prophecy that the Gentiles throughout the world should enter 
the Messianic kingdom, while of the Jews, who were the first 
nation chosen to enjoy it, the great majority would persist in 
their unbelief. 4 Christ’s wonderful patience on the cross, the 
loud cry with which He commended His soul to His heavenly 
Father, and the extraordinary events after His death, produced 
so powerful an impression upon the centurion and his, men that 
they were seized with fear. Even the callous soldiers perceived 
that something supernatural was taking place. Alarm at un¬ 
usual phenomena in nature is natural in frail and sinful men, 
and so the warriors, who had no doubt often faced death with 
unflinching courage, now shrank back in terror. St. Mark, who 
often adds details omitted by the other evangelists, says that the 
centurion had stood “ over against ” our Lord as He hung on 
the cross, with His face, according to an ancient tradition, 
turned toward the west. Without a moment’s hesitation the 

1 Jansenius: “ pane or uni” privilegium. But the reading in St. Matthew 
is “ many bodies.” 

2 Rom. vi. 1 seqq. 

3 1 Cor. xv. 1 seqq. 

4 Compare Matthew viii. 11, 12. 



242 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Roman made public profession of his belief that Jesus was “ a 
just man” and “the Son of God.” The second expression is 
frequently regarded as a commentary on the first, 1 but it is 
possible that they were two distinct testimonials, and actually 
uttered one after the other. Some suppose that the centurion, 
when he called Jesus the Son of God, used the words in the sense 
that they bear in pagan mythology, meaning “ hero ” or “ demi¬ 
god ”; it is, however, far more probable, and more in keeping 
with the scene, to believe that he had at least a faint perception 
of Christ’s divine nature and dignity. 

We read in the Acts of the Martyrs that pagans were often 
converted when they witnessed the steadfastness of the servants 
of God, and therefore we need feel no surprise if the Roman 
centurion believed when he beheld our dying Saviour. Ac¬ 
cording to the apocryphal Acts of Pilate 2 the centurion’s name 
was Longinus, but in the Roman Martyrology Longinus is 
commemorated on March 15th as the soldier who opened our 
Lord’s side with a lance. 3 Another tradition represents this 
man as the son of the centurion who had besought our Lord to 
heal his dying servant, 4 and whose deep humility and firm faith 
aroused the astonishment of Jesus. The Jewish people present 
at the execution who, acting under the influence of the Jewish 
leaders, had demanded the death of Christ, now also repented, 
and gave expression to their sorrow by striking their breasts 
and acknowledging their guilt. 

St. John is the only evangelist who tells us that while our 
Saviour was dying there stood by the cross His mother, and 
His mother’s sister, Mary, wife of Cleophas, Mary Magdalen, 
and John; the other evangelists say that after our Lord’s death 
the friends and women who had followed Him from Galilee 
stood at some distance from the cross. The two statements are 
distinct, and we need not try to make St. John’s indication of 
place agree with that of the synoptic writers. 5 While Jesus 
was in His agony three women stood close by the cross, but 
after His death two at least of them withdrew from the cross, 


1 August. Cons, evang. 3, 20. 

2 B. xi.; compare Tisch. 309. 

8 Caesareae in Cappadocia passio sancti Longini militis, qui latus Domini 
lancea perforasse dicitur. 

4 Matthew viii. 5 seqq . 

6 Tir. ad Jo. xix. 25. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


243 


and, standing a little distance off, watched the subsequent events. 
St. Luke speaks of “ all His acquaintance ”; this would certainly 
include the apostles, who had in the meantime assembled and 
boldly approached the place where the sorrowful scene was being 
enacted. Of the women present three are mentioned by St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, viz., Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother 
of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome, the mother of 
James and John the sons of Zebedee. The Mary who is de¬ 
scribed as the mother of James and Joseph may be identified 
with the Mary whom St. John calls “sister” and our Lord’s 
mother, and wife of Cleophas (or Alphaeus). Baronius 1 ar¬ 
gues that this identification is inadmissible, because the one is 
said by St. John to have stood beside the cross, whereas the other, 
according to the synoptic evangelists, stood afar off; but this 
argument has no weight. If Mary Magdalen was first at the 
foot of the cross and then farther away, the same may have been 
the case with Mary the wife of Cleophas. 


IV. The Thrust with the Lance 
John xix. 31-37 


31. Then the Jews (because it was 
the parasceve) that the bodies might 
not remain upon the cross on the 
sabbath-day (for that was a great 
sabbath-day) besought Pilate that 
their legs might be broken, and that 
they might be taken away. 

32. The soldiers therefore came: 
and they broke the legs of the first, 
and of the other that was crucified 
with him. 

33. But after they were come to 
Jesus, when they saw that he was 
already dead, they did not break his 
legs. 


34. But one of the soldiers with a 
spear opened his side, and immedi¬ 
ately there came out blood and 
water. 

35. And he that saw it hath given 
testimony: and his testimony is true. 
And he knoweth that he saith true; 
that you also may believe. 

36. For these things were done 
that the scripture might be fulfilled: 
You shall not break a bone of him. 

37. And again another scripture 
saith: They shall look on him whom 
they pierced. 


As a rule, death by crucifixion was very slow, as well as ex¬ 
tremely painful. No vital organs were injured, and conse¬ 
quently men of robust constitution frequently lingered in agony 
for several days before they were released by death. Seneca 2 


1 Apparatus ad annales, n. 67. . . , 

2 Seneca, Epist. 101: invenitur aliquis, qui malit inter supphcia tabescere 
et perire membratim et toties per stillicidia amittere animamf 




244 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

says that persons crucified languished away, died limb by limb, 
and lost life drop by drop. Generally nothing was done to 
shorten their sufferings, and they remained hanging on the cross, 
until they died of hunger, thirst, loss of blood, or the fever 
produced by their wounds. 1 According to Roman custom their 
bodies were left hanging until the flesh rotted away or was 
eaten by wild animals. In the time of Augustus permission was 
given for their burial upon request made by their relatives. 
The Jewish custom was different, for the law of Moses required 
the body of any man hanged on a gibbet to be taken down and 
buried the same day. 2 

As Jesus was probably nailed to the cross about the third hour 
(9 a.m.), and died about the ninth hour (3 p.m.), His agony 
was comparatively brief. The two thieves crucified with Him 
did not die so soon, and as the day was drawing to a close, and 
a great Sabbath was at hand, the Jews begged Pilate to hasten 
their death by means of the crurifragium, in order that the 
bodies might be taken down from the cross at the proper time. 

The crurifragium, or breaking of the bones of the legs by means of a 
club, was a Roman punishment, inflicted usually only upon slaves and 
enemies. It was something quite independent of crucifixion, as we can see 
in the case of the thieves, for the Jews had to make special application to 
Pilate for permission to inflict it. Many commentators * 8 think that in Pal¬ 
estine it may have been usual to combine the two punishments, in order 
that the bodies might be removed from the cross in conformity with the 
Law of Moses. In the present case the Jews gave as the reason for their 
request the fact that the approach of the great Sabbath necessitated the 
early removal of the corpses. There can be no doubt that the breaking of 
the legs in this case was intended to hasten the death of the crucified per¬ 
sons, for no one who had suffered crucifixion was ever taken down until 
he was dead, and the Jews were extremely anxious that Jesus should die. 
Crurifragium in conjunction with the intense pain of crucifixion would 
probably cause instantaneous death. Leonard Hug and Friedlieb, however, 
are of another opinion; the former thinks that the breaking of the legs 
would injure a crucified man beyond all possibility of recovery, so that he 
might be safely handed over to his family, and left to die. Friedlieb be¬ 
lieves that a coup de grace was always given at the same time when a man’s 
legs were thus broken. 

St. John says of the Sabbath following the crucifixion that it was “a 
great Sabbath day,” or, literally, “ great was the day of the Sabbath.” This 
is the reading of the best Greek text. It differs very slightly from a some¬ 
what inferior reading, which, however, is followed by the Vulgate: “ Great 
was that day of the Sabbath.” The words vp yap /ueyAXrj ij ijfxepa eKdpov 


1 Euseb. H. E. 8, 8. 2 j)eut. xxi. 22, 23. 

8 Lipsius, de Cruce, 2, 14; Menochius, Jansenius. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


245 


craj 3 / 3 c£TOL' do not grammatically refer to irapacTKevi] but to o’a/ 3 / 3 droj>, — the 
Sabbath following the Parasceve (Good Friday), and not the Parasceve 
itself, was a great day. This passage is quoted as a weighty argument in 
support of the hypothesis that the great Paschal festival of the Jews fol¬ 
lowed the day of our Lord’s crucifixion. Knabenbauer thinks St. John 
could not possibly speak of the festival simply as 7ra paoKevq and then allude 
to the following Sabbath as a great day. There is certainly considerable 
force in this argument, but on the other hand we must remember that St. 
John describes the days less according to their importance in the eyes of 
the Jews than according to their significance in the history of our redemp¬ 
tion. Even if the day of the crucifixion coincided with the great Jewish 
festival, he might still call it simply the Parasceve, because at the time 
when he wrote his gospel this name was commonly given to the day of our 
Saviour’s death, and he describes the following Sabbath as a great day, in 
order to explain why the Jews were anxious to have the bodies taken down 
from the crosses before sunset, since the law forbade such a thing to be 
done on the Sabbath. We may therefore follow the early commentators 
and believe that St. John calls the Sabbath after the crucifixion a great day, 
because it occurred during the week of the Pasch, and coincided with the 
second day of the festival, a day known as the day of Omer, which, like 
the great day of Atonement, ranked as a Sabbath, and consequently that 
particular Sabbath may be said to have been a sort of double Sabbath. 
Lyranus says: quia sabbatum duplicatum propter octavam paschae concur¬ 
rent em . 1 

That Pilate allowed the crurifragium to take place is plain 
from the evangelist’s account. The Roman soldiers broke the 
legs of the two criminals crucified with Christ, killing in this 
manner first the man on the right and then the one on the left 
of our Lord. Some scholars suppose that Pilate appointed 
special soldiers for this purpose, and we read in the Acts of 
Pilate, “ He then sent soldiers who found that the two thieves 
were still breathing ”; 2 it is, however, more probable that the 
soldiers guarding the crosses inflicted this further punishment. 
The presence of the article in the Greek text ( oi crrpartcorat) 
implies that the soldiers were already known as the executioners, 
and although St. John says that they came , this may very well 
mean that they had received fresh instructions. 

They perceived that the two malefactors were still alive, but 
saw that Jesus was already dead, so they refrained from break¬ 
ing His legs, but “ one of the soldiers with a spear opened his 

side.” 

The instrument here called a spear was the ordinary weapon used bv 
Roman soldiers towards the close of the republic and during the empire. It 


Compare Corn, a Lap. 


B. xi. 2; compare Tisch. 311. 




246 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

consisted of a long wooden shaft tipped with a sharp iron point. The verb 
vvaaeiv used by the evangelist signifies “to pierce,” to make an opening. 

There are several reasons for thinking that the wound in our 
Lord’s side was not a mere scratch, but deep enough to have in 
itself been mortal: The soldier who inflicted it was trained in 
the art of killing, — all the evangelists use the same verb to 
designate his action; the apostle Thomas speaks of the wound as 
large enough to lay his hand in; blood and water issued from 
it; and lastly, the object in inflicting it was to make sure that 
the execution had been duly carried out. No crucified person 
could be taken down from the cross and handed over to his 
family for burial unless he was undoubtedly dead. In cases 
where a request was made for the body, it was not granted until 
a thrust had been given with a lance, to render it perfectly 
certain that death had taken place: “ percussos ” sepelire carni~ 
fex non veta . 1 2 

At the Council of Vienne (sacro approbante concilio ) Pope Clement V 
condemned a theory put forward by Olivi, a Franciscan, who asserted that 
Jesus was still alive when the soldier struck Him with the spear, and that, 
in recounting the events of the Passion, St. John had erroneously repre¬ 
sented the thrust as having been given after our Lord’s death. Another 
Franciscan, Ubertino, who upheld Olivi’s theory, said that the latter might 
have based it upon the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus, 3 but this statement 
is hardly accurate, for the Acta Pilati, to which, together with the Descent 
sus Christi ad inferos, another apocryphal work, is given the name of the 
“ Gospel according to Nicodemus,” show plainly, at least in their present 
form, that Jesus was dead before the soldiers came to break the legs of the 
two thieves. The passage has been already quoted as far as it refers to the 
crurifragium; it continues: “But when they found that Jesus had died, 
they did not touch Him at all, only a soldier gave Him a thrust with a 
lance on His right side, and immediately blood and water gushed forth.” 8 

We still have to discuss the question whether our Lord’s right 
or left side was pierced. As the soldier stood facing the cross 
and used his right hand, it seems at first sight probable that he 
struck Jesus on His left side, just through the heart. But the 
Acta Pilati, quoted above, say that the wound was on the right 
side, and a similar statement occurs in the Ethiopian translation 
of the evangelical narrative, in which we read that the soldier 
confodit latns ejus, quod dextrum, lancea. In the apocryphal 
Gospel of the Childhood of Jesus we are told that the wicked 


1 Quinctil. deck 6, 9. 

2 Compare Hefele, Konziliengesch. 6, 540. 

8 Acta Pilati, B. xi. 2; compare Tisch. 311. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


247 


Judas once wounded the Holy Child on His right side when at 
play: hie autem puer, qui Jesum percussit . . . erat Judas 
Ischariotes, qui ilium Judaeis prodidit: et idem ejus latus, in 
quo percusserat eum Judas, Judaei lancea confixerunt . 1 There 
is in the library Laurentiana at Florence a Syrian manuscript 
containing the works of Bishop Rabulas of Odessa, who died 
435 A - D * "The manuscript dates from the sixth century, and in 
it is one of the earliest pictures of the crucifixion, representing 
the soldier in the act of piercing our Lord’s right side. We may 
perhaps conclude that the lance was driven into the right side 
with such force as to pierce the whole chest and penetrate the 
heart. 2 According to Aurelius Prudentius, a Christian poet, 
who died about 413 a.d., the point of the lance came out on the 
left side. In speaking of Christ’s Passion he says: Trajectus 
per utrumque latus, laticem atque cruorem Christus agit: sanguis 
victoria , lympha lavacrum est. 

In the Roman Martyrology mention is made on March 15th 
of a soldier named Longinus, who opened our Lord’s side with 
a lance, and in the Acts of Pilate 3 this Longinus is identified 
with the centurion in command of the soldiers at the crucifixion 
(Matthew xxvii. 54), who gave testimony to Jesus when he 
witnessed the marvellous events that followed His death. It 
has been suggested that the name Longinus is derived from the 
Greek \oyxV, a lance, but this is unlikely, as the name Longinus 
is Latin, and was a cognomen of the Gens Cassia . 4 A certain 
Cassius Longinus is well known in secular history as the mur¬ 
derer of Caesar. 

Blood and water issued from the wound in our Lord’s side. 

According to St. John’s testimony blood and water flowed from 
the wound caused by the lance in our Lord’s dead body. Many 
commentators regard this occurrence as natural, although they 
account for it in various ways. 

As St. John distinguishes blood and water, we must assume 
them to have flowed separately, first blood and then water. 
This assumption is supported by the passage in his first epistle 
(verse 6), where he unmistakably refers to the fact recorded in 


1 Evang. infant. Arab. 35; compare Tisch. 200. 

2 Compare Corn, a Lap. 

3 B. xi. 1; compare Tisch. 309. 

4 Metaphrastes alludes to Longinus on Oct. 16th. 



248 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


the gospel. It is impossible to attach much weight to the argu¬ 
ment that in the gospel blood is mentioned first, and in the epistle 
water, for in the former place the apostle is speaking of the 
order of the two things, in the latter of their significance. The 
gospel narrative is decidedly in favor of the theory that real, 
true blood, and real, true water, flowed from the wound in 
Christ’s side. Pope Innocent III declared the water to have 
been genuine water and consequently the blood must also have 
been genuine blood. 1 

We must therefore reject any attempts to show that what flowed from 
our Lord’s side was a watery fluid tinged with blood; nor can we admit the 
theory that the blood in His body had already separated into serum and 
placenta. Any such resolution of His body into its constituent parts would 
be the beginning of decomposition, and St. Peter applied to Christ the 
words of Ps. xv. io, “ nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption,” 
adding: “ He whom God hath raised from the dead, saw no corruption.” 2 * 
In his explanation of the passage in St. John, Tirinus remarks: corpus 
Christi etsi anima destitutum corruptionem non sensit. 

William Stroud, an English physician, published in 1847 a work in which 
he describes more precisely his view of what occurred. He arrives at the 
conclusion that Christ died from rupture of the heart, and that as the body 
cooled the blood, which in consequence of this rupture had collected in the 
pericardium, coagulated very quickly, and separated into serum and crassa- 
mentum. 8 Against this other physicians maintain that rupture of the heart 
takes place only in the case of elderly persons, or of such as have some 
organic defect in their heart. Our Lord belonged to neither class. 

Christian Gottfried Gruner, professor of medicine and botany in the 
faculty of medicine at the University of Jena (1773-1815), and an authority 
on medicine in his day, made a scientific study of the account of our Lord’s 
death, and came to the conclusion that pure blood and water might quite 
naturally have flowed from the body when it was pierced. 4 The same opin¬ 
ion is held by many other scholars. They think that as a rule the blood 
in a dead body coagulates about an hour after death. In the pericardium 
there is a vaporous fluid which settles and appears as water if the pericar¬ 
dium is opened or the temperature of the body becomes very low. Conse¬ 
quently, if less than an hour had elapsed between our Lord’s death and the 
moment when His body was pierced with the lance, and if the lance pene¬ 
trated the pericardium and reached the heart, the flow of pure blood and 
real water can be easily explained on physiological lines. 

If we take into account the whole tenor of St. John’s state¬ 
ment and his subsequent allusion to the water and blood, it 
seems very doubtful whether we are justified in regarding the 


1 Lib iii. deer. tit. 41 de celebr. Missae, c. viii. 

2 Acts xiii. 37. 

8 Stroud, A Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ 
pp. 153-156. 

4 Vindiciae mortis Jesu Christi verae. 




CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


249 


occurrence as purely natural, even though it were possible to 
do so from the medical point of view, which is questionable. 
Bengel, a Protestant writer, in commenting upon the immediate 
flow of blood and water from the wound in Christ’s side, re¬ 
marks: quod sanguis exiit, minim: quod etiam aqua, magis 
mirum; quod utrumque statim, uno tempore et tamen distincte, 
m oxime mirum. Haneberg, a more recent commentator, regards 
the water and the blood as parallel to the bloody sweat on the 
Mount of Olives. The fundamental conditions for such a phe¬ 
nomenon are present in the human body, but the phenomenon 
does not occur unless some miraculous influence is at work. 

St. John’s words in his gospel and the reference in his first 
epistle seem to show plainly that he looked upon the occurrence 
as miraculous. There are three reasons that justify us in 
making this assertion. The evangelist, after telling us that 
Jesus was dead, speaks of real blood and real water as coming 
out immediately from the body when the side was opened. The 
blood and water flowed separately, and particular stress is laid 
upon this point in the first epistle of St. John, which is frequently 
regarded as a supplement to the gospel. In verse 35 he empha¬ 
sizes the fact of his having been an eyewitness, and, therefore, 
the trustworthiness of his testimony, by means of a peculiarly 
solemn and weighty phrase, the purpose of which is unmis¬ 
takable. 1 

He declares that the occurrence just described served to 
strengthen men’s faith and to fulfill a Messianic prophecy. St. 
John never writes thus of any natural event, however important. 
Many commentators from the earliest times down to the present 
day have looked upon the flow of blood and water from our 
Lord’s side as miraculous. Among those who have taken this 
view may be mentioned St. Cyril of Jerusalem 2 (who compares 
it with the miracle wrought by Moses in Egypt when the water 
was turned into blood), St. Ambrose, 3 Euthymius, and Theo- 
phylact, 4 St. Thomas Aquinas, 5 Lyranus, Toletus, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Sylveira, Jansenius, and Belser. Belser (p. 433) says 

1 Jansenius: qua tanta inculcatione indicat, se rem revera valde insolitam 
et miraculosam narrasse, quaeque magnatn contineret mysterium. 

2 Catech. xiii. 21. 

* In Luc. c. 23. 

4 Ad loc. 

6 Summa iii. quaest. 60, art. 4. 



250 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


that by an act of His omnipotence our Saviour broke His own 
heart, and that this is what the evangelist intends to convey to 
us. This interpretation removes all the difficulties which medical 
science might raise if the occurrence were purely natural. 

Mystic significance of the blood and water. Various answers 
are given to the question as to why St. John recorded this won¬ 
derful event. Some think that it was to afford his readers per¬ 
fect certainty regarding the death of Jesus; others that it was 
to refute the error of those heretics who taught that Jesus was 
Man in outward appearance only. Cornelius a Lapide explains 
the deeper significance and the ultimate reason of St. John’s 
statement and says: hoc factum est ad mysterium, non ad meri- 
tum; meritum enim in morte Christus consummavit , nec enini, 
jam mortuus mereri potuit . St. Augustine discusses fully the 
mystic significance of the whole episode. He points out first, 
that the Latin translator did well in rendering vvaaetv by aperire, 
because this verb vividly expresses the truth symbolized by 
the flow of blood and water, viz., that the Messianic means 
of salvation are the fruit of Christ’s work of redemption on the 
cross. 1 

The water is regarded as the symbol of the Sacrament of 
Baptism, the blood as that of the Sacrament of the Altar, but 
as Baptism is the principium and the Eucharist the finis et com - 
plementum of all the sacraments, St. Augustine says that the 
sacraments of the Church flowed from the wound in Christ’s 
side. The expression corresponds with the mystic significance 
attached by the Fathers of the Church to the occurrence. He 
means to say: the blood and water flowing from Christ’s 
wounded side symbolize the truth that the sacraments of the 
Church are based upon His death on the cross, and that the 
graces which we derive from them are due to the merits of His 
redemption. As the Church of Christ is founded upon and sup¬ 
ported by the sacraments, it also is said to have proceeded from 
the wound in our Lord’s side. Thus in the hymn at Matins on 
the feast of the Sacred Heart we read: 


1 August. Tract, in Joann., 120, 2: vigilanti verbo evangelista usns est, 
ut non diceret, latus ejus percussit, aut vulneravit aut quid aliud, sed: 
aperuit, ut illic quodammodo vitae ostium panderetur, unde sacramenta 
ecclesiae manaverunt, sine quibus ad vitam, quae vera est, non intratur. 
Ille sanguis in remissionem fusus est peccatorum ; aqua ilia salutare tem- 
perat poculum; haec et lavacrurn praestat et potum. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


251 


Ex corde scisso ecclesia 
Christo jugata nascitur; 

Hoc ostium arcae in latere est 
Genti ad salutem positum. 

St. John adds to his account the solemn asseveration: “And he 
that saw it hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And 
he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.” 
These words are exceptionally impressive, and the reason for 
their being so is that St. John had a very lofty object in view. 
As usual he speaks of himself in the third person, and emphasizes 
the truth of his testimony and the fact that he was an eyewitness. 
In quite general terms he says that “ he who saw it hath given 
testimony.” The pronoun is often regarded as referring ex¬ 
clusively to the blood and water flowing from our Lord’s side, 
but the words that follow suggest that we should take the refer¬ 
ence as including also the omission of the crurifragium and the 
thrust with the lance, although the chief stress is laid upon the 
blood and water. St. John’s use of the perfect tense, “ hath 
given testimony,” indicates that the testimony had been given 
in the past, but its validity was permanent. The apostle actually 
witnessed what he records, and can lay claim to perfect trust¬ 
worthiness, and therefore his testimony concerning what took 
place after our Lord’s death is intended to confirm his readers 
in their belief that Jesus was indeed the Messiah foretold by 
types and prophecies, and that His death on the cross was the 
Messianic work of redemption. 

The evangelist points out that when the soldiers refrained from breaking 
our Lord’s legs, they fulfilled the prophecy “You shall not break a bone of 
him.” These words form part of the rules relating to the preparation of 
the Paschal lamb, which had to be roasted whole. 1 As Christ is the antitype 
of the Jewish Paschal lamb, 2 the words were perfectly fulfilled only when 
He was sacrificed on Golgotha for all mankind. The omission of the cruri¬ 
fragium had, however, also a deep symbolical significance. It represents 
the unity of the family of God’s followers established by Christ’s atone¬ 
ment, and it indicates the truth that the Church possesses Christ whole and 
undivided, and the full abundance of all the graces bestowed through Him 
upon the human race, and also that she is the channel whereby these graces 
reach her members. 

When the soldier opened our Lord’s side instead of breaking His legs, 
the words were fulfilled which God spoke to the Jews through Zacharias: 3 
“ they shall look upon me whom they pierced.” St. John records primarily 
the fact that the Jews present at the crucifixion watched the soldier as he 


1 Exod. xii. 46. 


I Cor. v. 7. 


3 Zach. xii. 10. 





252 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


opened our Lord’s side, and consequently were witnesses of the fulfillment 
of the prophecy; but his employment of the words i>pav els suggests that an¬ 
other prophecy of Zacharias, concerning the eventful repentance and conver¬ 
sion of the Jews, will also be fulfilled. This fulfillment began even on Cal¬ 
vary, when many of the spectators went home striking their breasts in token 
of contrition; 1 it continued after St. Peter’s first sermon,* and it will be 
completed before the end of the world. 8 


V. The Burial of Christ 


Matthew xxvii. 57-61 

57. And when it was evening 
there came a certain rich man of 
Arimathea, named Joseph, who also 
himself was a disciple of Jesus. 

58. He went to Pilate and asked 
the body of Jesus. Then Pilate 
commanded that the body should be 
delivered. 

59. And Joseph taking the body, 
wrapt it up in a clean linen cloth. 

60. And laid it in his own new 
monument, which he had hewed out 
in a rock. And he rolled a great 
stone to the door of the monument, 
and went his way. 

61. And there was there Mary 
Magdalen and the other Mary sit¬ 
ting over against the sepulchre. 


Luke xxiii. 50-53 

50. And behold there was a man 
named Joseph, who was a counsel¬ 
lor, a good and a just man: 

51. (The same had not consented 
to their counsel and doings) of 
Arimathea, a city of Judea, who also 
himself looked for the kingdom of 
God. 

52. This man went to Pilate, and 
begged the body of Jesus. 

53. And taking him down, he 


Mark xv. 42-47 

42. And when evening was now 
come (because it was the Paras- 
ceve, that is, the day before the 
Sabbath) 

43. Joseph of Arimathea, a noble 
counsellor, who was also himself 
looking for the kingdom of God, 
came and went in boldly to Pilate, 
and begged the body of Jesus. 

44. But Pilate wondered that he 
should be already dead. And send¬ 
ing for the centurion, he asked him 
if he were already dead. 

45. And when he had understood 
it by the centurion, he gave the 
body to Joseph. 

46. And Joseph buying fine linen, 
and taking him down, wrapped him 
up in the fine linen and laid him 
in a sepulchre, which was hewed 
out of a rock. And he rolled a 
stone to the door of the sepulchre. 

47. And Mary Magdalen and 
Mary the mother of Joseph beheld 
where he was laid. 

John xix. 38-39 

38. After these things Joseph of 
Arimathea (because he was a dis¬ 
ciple of Jesus but secretly for fear 
of the Jews) besought Pilate that 
he might take away the body of 
Jesus. And Pilate gave leave. He 
came therefore and took away the 
body of Jesus. 

39. And Nicodemus also came, he 
who at first came to Jesus by night, 
bringing a mixture of myrrh and 


1 Luke xxiii. 48. 


2 Acts ii. 37 seqq. 


8 Rom. xi. 25 seqq. 






CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


253 


Luke xxiii. 54-56 

wrapped him in fine linen, and laid 
him in a sepulchre that was hewed 
in stone, wherein never yet any man 
had been laid. 

54. And it was the day of the 
Parasceve, and the sabbath drew on. 

55. And the women that were 
come with him from Galilee, follow¬ 
ing after saw the sepulchre, and 
how his body was laid. 

56. And returning, they prepared 
spices and ointments; and on the 
sabbath day they rested according 
to the commandment. 


John xix. 40-42 

aloes, about an hundred pound 
weight. 

40. They took therefore the body 
of Jesus, and bound it in linen 
cloths with the spices, as the man¬ 
ner of the Jews is to bury. 

41. Now there was in the place, 
where he was crucified, a garden; 
and in the garden, a new sepulchre, 
wherein no man yet had been laid. 

42. There therefore because of 
the Parasceve of the Jews, they laid 
Jesus, because the sepulchre was 
nigh at hand. 


Lyranus introduces his account of the descent from the cross 
and the burial of Christ with the words, mors ignominiosa , 
sepultura nobilis et sumptuosa. Inanimate nature had expressed 
its sympathy, and through the wonderful events that occurred it 
gave utterance to the fact that its Lord had died on the cross; 
Gentiles had understood this emphatic language and had pro¬ 
claimed their inference that the Crucified was the Son of God; 
and even many Jews, who saw what took place, were filled with 
contrition. Now the disciples, hitherto held back by fear, ap¬ 
proached and boldly honored their Master’s body with a burial 
worthy of a king. St. Luke tells us that all our Lord’s acquaint¬ 
ance had stood watching, and now we hear of two men who 
played a prominent part in burying our Lord. We have already 
seen that the Romans were accustomed to leave the bodies of 
persons crucified on their crosses until the flesh rotted away or 
was devoured by wild animals. From the reign of Augustus on¬ 
ward, however, it became usual to hand over the corpses to 
relatives for burial. The Jewish law required them to be taken 
down and buried before nightfall; and consequently, soon after 
our Lord’s death, His body was taken down and laid in the 
tomb. The task was not entrusted to the Jews, who had rejected 
Him, but was performed most reverently by the disciples, who 
undertook it, partly because they wished to show honor to their 
Master, partly because the prophets had foretold that His burial 
should be carried out with great solemnity. 

The hour of our Lord’s burial. According to all four evan¬ 
gelists, Christ’s body was taken down from the cross and 



254 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


prepared for burial late in the afternoon of the 15th of Nisan, 
not long before the beginning of the Sabbath at sunset (6 p.m.). 
After the body was laid in the tomb the women still had time to 
return to the town and buy spices and unguents 1 before sunset, 
consequently the burial must have taken place about 5 p.m. 

Joseph of Arimathea. The evangelists tell us that he came 
from the little town of Ramathain, the birthplace of Samuel, 
and had settled in Jerusalem, where he possessed a private sepul¬ 
chre. Being a wealthy man and a member of the Sanhedrin, 
he was highly respected, and was moreover greatly esteeemd on 
account of his piety and justice. He was a secret disciple of 
Jesus and looked forward with eager longing to the establish¬ 
ment of the Messianic kingdom. St. Luke says that Joseph had 
not consented to the counsel and doings of the Sanhedrin, so we 
may probably assume that he was present at the assembly when 
Jesus was condemned, but through fear of the Jews had raised 
no protest, although he did not acquiesce in the verdict. This 
theory is not incompatible with St. Mark’s statement 2 that all 
the members of the council condemned our Lord, for a single 
exception would hardly deserve notice. On the other hand it is 
quite possible that Joseph of Arimathea took no part in the de¬ 
liberations of the Sanhedrin, and may have had no opportunity 
of speaking in our Lord’s defence. St. Matthew calls Joseph 
a rich man; his wealth is often regarded as the reason why he 
dared to go boldly to Pilate and why his request was so readily 
granted. The allusion to his riches indicates the influence ex¬ 
erted by Christ even upon those exposed to the temptations and 
allurements of great possessions. It is possible that St. Mat¬ 
thew, who frequently refers to Old Testament prophecies, 
mentions that Joseph was rich, because he saw in this fact the 
fulfillment of a prophecy relating to our Lord’s burial. 3 The 
Vulgate reading of the passage in Isaias is, “He shall give the 
ungodly for his burial and the rich for his death,” and accord¬ 
ing to the original Hebrew text the meaning is: the Jews, who 
caused Jesus to die on the cross, destined for Him a burial with 
the ungodly; in reality, however, in consequence of divine in¬ 
terposition, He was buried in a rich man’s sepulchre. 4 Accord¬ 
ing to one tradition, the Jews, about a year after our Lord’s 


1 Luke xxiii. 56. 

3 Isa. liii. 9. 


3 xiv. 64. 

4 Compare Knabenb. Isaias, 605. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


255 


ascension, put Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, 
Martha, and their servant Marcella on a ship without a rudder, 
and exposed them thus to the perils of the sea. Joseph is said 
to have reached Massilia (Marseilles) in safety and to have 
journeyed across Gaul to Britain, where he died. 1 

This man went boldly, as St. Mark says, to Pilate, and begged 
the body of Jesus. It needed great courage to make this request, 
for not only was Joseph certain to bring down upon himself the 
wrath of the Sanhedrists, but he was acting in a manner opposed 
to all the prejudices of the upper classes, who would regard it 
as derogatory for a member of the council to provide for the 
burial of a man who had been crucified. He derived his courage 
not, as frequently happens, from his riches, but from the merits 
of Christ’s redemption, which transformed completely the previ¬ 
ously timid disciple. 2 By divine ordinance Joseph’s former 
timid and perhaps cowardly behavior served to display the power 
and efficacy of the grace of Christ. According to St. Mark, 
Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead, but being con¬ 
vinced from the centurion’s official report that death had actually 
taken place, he gave the body to Joseph, without raising any 
opposition. There is no difficulty in reconciling this statement 
with' that of St. John, who says that the Jews begged the proc¬ 
urator to allow the legs of those crucified to be broken. In 
all probability Joseph went to Pilate as soon as our Lord had 
breathed His last, and as he appeared before the procurator very 
shortly after the Jews had proffered their request, the latter 
might reasonably wonder whether the crnrifragium had already 
taken place, for he must have been well aware that the Jews’ 
object was to hasten the death of Jesus. The centurion may 
have just returned from the place of execution to the barracks 
when Pilate sent for him. It was no doubt due to divine ordi¬ 
nance that he was called upon to give an official report 3 of the 
death of Jesus, as thus he bore conclusive testimony to the fact 
that our Lord had really died. 

Nicodemus co-operated with Joseph of Arimathea in making arrange¬ 
ments for the burial. He is mentioned (three times) by St. John, but by 


1 Baron. Ann. ad a. 35, n. 5. . . . . , . 

2 Jansenius: Hinc emicare inctpit virtus Dommicae passioms, quod ita 

subito in alium virum mutatus sit. . 

3 Maldonatus comments anent this report: omnia dxvmo facta sunt 

consilio. 




256 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

none of the other evangelists. He belonged to the strict sect of Pharisees, 
who tried to uphold the national independence of the Jews; he was a mem¬ 
ber of the Sanhedrin and was advanced in years when he first came into 
contact with Jesus. Just three years before the crucifixion he came to our 
Lord, who was keeping the Pasch in Jerusalem for the first time. 1 Nicode- 
mus then acknowledged that Jesus was a prophet sent from God, and re¬ 
ceived instruction regarding the conditions of admission to the Messianic 
kingdom, the necessity of spiritual rebirth, and the source whence proceeds 
the power that is able to regenerate mankind, as well as the subjective con¬ 
ditions of its attainment. About six months before our Lord’s death we 
hear of Nicodemus speaking as a member of the Sanhedrin in defence of 
Jesus, and by his boldness frustrating the designs of the council against 
Him.* For the third and last time we hear of Nicodemus at our Lord’s 
burial. St. John’s account reads as though Joseph of Arimathea acted alone 
in going to Pilate, and Nicodemus seems to have taken no part in removing 
Christ’s body from the cross. The Acts of Pilate 8 state also that Joseph 
went alone to Pilate, Nicodemus having refused to accompany him because 
he feared the procurator’s anger. It is quite in harmony with the evangel¬ 
ist’s account to assume that, as soon as Jesus was dead, Joseph went to beg 
his body from Pilate, and, when his request was granted, hastened back to 
Calvary and superintended the descent from the cross; Nicodemus, having 
in the meantime gone to the city to fetch the spices needed for the burial, 
found on his return that our Lord’s body was already taken down. 

Preparations for the burial. The best account of these prepa¬ 
rations is given by St. John, 4 who remarks that they were in 
accordance with the Jewish custom. In the first place the eyes 
and the mouth of the corpse were closed, then the body was 
washed and wrapped in a clean cloth, separate cloths being 
wound round head, hands, and feet, and care being taken to 
bend the right thumb towards the palm, so as to make it resemble 
the first letter of the name Yahweh. Fragrant spices were 
sprinkled between the body and the cloths, and' over the latter 
liquid perfumes were poured with a view to deferring decom¬ 
position. Sometimes perfumes were rubbed on the body itself. 
Both from Biblical and profane sources, 5 we learn that among 
the Jews costly unguents were lavished on kings and great men, 
and much incense was burnt at their burial. Real embalming, 
as practised by the Egyptians, was never a Jewish custom, since 
it involved dissection of the body, which the Jews abhorred for 
religious reasons. Jacob and Joseph were embalmed, 6 * but theirs 
were exceptional cases, as their bodies were to be carried 
eventually to Palestine, and therefore had to be preserved from 

1 John iii. I seqq. 2 John vii. 50. 

* B. xi. 3 (Tisch. 311 seqq.). 4 xix. 40. 

8 Paral. xvi. 14; xxi. 19; Flav. Jos. Ant. xvii. 8, 3; B. J. 1, 33, 9. 

8 Gen. L. 2, 25. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


257 


decay as far as possible. The synoptic evangelists say that our 
Lord’s body was wrapped in a clean cloth; it was certainly 
not made of cotton, as some commentators assume, but of linen, 
woven from flax. 1 The official robes of a Jewish priest were 
of linen, symbolizing the inward purity that they should strive 
to possess in order worthily to discharge their priestly func¬ 
tions, and the body of Him who was the most pure and supreme 
high priest was wrapped in linen. Stress is laid upon this sym¬ 
bolical interpretation by St. Matthew’s remark that the cloth 
was clean. 2 St. John’s account seems to imply that the linen 
was cut into broad strips, so that it might be wrapped round 
our Lord’s hands and feet. The same evangelist tells us with 
great precision that Nicodemus came bringing a mixture of 
myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. The myrrh 
was in the form of oil, and the aloes in that of powder. The 
large amount need not surprise us, for we are not told that the 
whole was used in the preparation of the body for burial; it is 
quite possible that part of the spices were strewn in the sepul¬ 
chre, and part may have been burnt. Flavius Josephus 3 says 
that five hundred slaves and freedmen bearing censers followed 
in the funeral procession of Herod the Great. In all probability 
our Lord’s body was not anointed; the pious women had in¬ 
tended to anoint it after the Sabbath, 4 but could not do so, as in 
the meantime He had risen. According to the apocryphal Acts 
of Pilate, 6 our Lord’s mother, Mary Magdalen, Salome, John, 
and the women present, all took part in the task of preparing 
His body for burial. 

Shape and position of the sepulchre. Jews, especially if they were 
wealthy, preferred to bury their dead in chambers hewn in solid rock, which 
were reached through a low doorway. The separate graves were hewn either 
in the floor or in the sides of these chambers. Those in the floor were called 
vertical graves, and were less common than those in the sides. The latter 
have, since the time of Titus Tobler, been classified as follows: (1) thrust- 
graves, quadrangular galleries cut lengthwise into the rock, into which the 
bodies were thrust horizontally; these may be regarded as the usual type of 
Jewish grave; (2) shelf-graves, in which the corpses were laid on stone 
shelves running along the side of the rock and frequently hewn into it, so 
that a sort of overhanging vault was formed. The shelves were about two 


1 Lyran.: panno lineo et mundo. Propter quod corpus Christi non con- 
secratur super pannum sericum, sed linum, quia corpus Christi in sepulchro 
tali panno erat involutum. 

2 Maid.: corpus Christi mundissimum. 

z Ant. xvii. 8, 3; B. J. 1, 39, 9. . 

4 Mark xvi. 1. B B. xi. 4 (Tisch. 313). 



258 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

feet from the floor, 6 or 6]/ 2 feet in length, and 20 inches in width; (3) 
trough-graves, cut to the length of the human body, and hollowed out ver¬ 
tically in the walls. 1 

The evangelists furnish us with several details regarding our 
Lord’s place of burial. It was a single grave, which Joseph of 
Arimathea had caused to be made for himself, and it was situ¬ 
ated very near to Golgotha. It was selected as a suitable sepul¬ 
chre for our Lord, partly on account of its proximity, and partly 
on account of its distinction. It had a small entrance chamber, 
from which a low doorway opened into the actual sepulchre; 
the latter was comparatively spacious, since it was large enough 
to contain Peter and John as well as the two angels in the form 
of youths. Our Lord’s body was placed so as to be visible from 
outside through the aperture. The evangelists emphasize the 
fact that the sepulchre was new and had not hitherto been 
used. 2 * 

We have already discussed the authenticity of the places ven¬ 
erated as the scene of Christ’s crucifixion and burial. 

In his Liber de terra sancta (about 530 a.d.) Theodosius states that the 
distance from Mount Calvary to the Holy Sepulchre is fifteen paces. The 
Itinerarium Burdigalense describes it as a stone’s throw: Inde ( scil . a Gol¬ 
gotha) quasi ad lapidis missum est crypta, ubi corpus ejus positum fuit et 
tertio die surrexit. The holy sepulchre lay to the northwest of Golgotha, 
on the other side of the road, to which there is apparently an allusion in 
Matthew xxvii. 39.® 

St. Luke says that the women who had come with Jesus from 
Galilee followed Him to the sepulchre, and St. Matthew and St. 
Mark state that Mary Magdalen and the other Mary (i.e., Mary 
the wife of Cleophas, mother of James and Joseph) sat “over 
against the sepulchre ” to see where our Lord was laid, for they 
intended to return and anoint His body as soon as the Sabbath 
was over. 

The Acta Pilati 4 supplement the brief account given by the evangelists. 
According to them, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also present at His 
burial; she shed bitter tears and declared that the prophecy uttered by aged 
Simeon in the Temple was at length fulfilled, but, at the same time, she 
protested that she looked forward to the time when her Son should rise 

1 Jewish Encycl., article on tombs. 

3 August.: sicut in Mariae virginis utero nemo ante ilium, nemo post 
ilium conceptus est, ita in hoc monumento novo nemo ante ilium, nemo post 
ilium sepultus est . 

8 Compare Mommert, Golgotha, 1-20. 

4 B. xi. 5, 6 (Tisch. 313, 314). 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


259 


again from the dead as He had promised. Mary Magdalen, too, stood 
weeping beside the sepulchre, pointing out how the Jews in return for all 
the benefits received from Jesus had given Him up to a shameful death, and 
charging Pilate with injustice for having yielded to the demands of the 
people. She even said that she was prepared to go herself to the Emperor 
in Rome and publish to the whole world the wrong which had been com¬ 
mitted. Although these statements are legendary, they agree with the feel¬ 
ings of fervent love and gratitude entertained by the penitent woman toward 
her Master and Benefactor. 

When the women at last left the sepulchre and returned to Jerusalem, 
after the burial of Jesus, they busied themselves, before the Sabbath began, 
with the preparation of spices and ointments, in order to be ready, as soon 
as the Sabbath was over, to go and anoint our Lord’s body. 


VI. The Sepulchre is Sealed and Guarded 
Matthew xxvii. 62-66 


62. And the next day, which fol¬ 
lowed the day of preparation, the 
chief priests and the Pharisees came 
together to Pilate, 

63. Saying: Sir, we have remem¬ 
bered, that that seducer said, while 
he was yet alive: After three days I 
will rise again. 

64. Command therefore the sep¬ 
ulchre to be guarded until the third 


day: lest perhaps his disciples come 
and steal him away, and say to the 
people, He is risen from the dead; 
and the last error shall be worse 
than the first. 

65. Pilate said to them: You have 
a guard: go, guard it as you know. 

66. And they departing, made the 
sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and 
setting guards. 


St. Matthew alone gives an account of the sealing and guard¬ 
ing of the sepulchre. In reply to David Strauss, Hug 1 has 
proved that, if we consider the actual state of affairs and the 
motives of our Lord’s enemies we are forced to admit that this 
account bears every appearance of being historically accurate, 
and cannot be arbitrarily regarded as legendary. 

The application for a guard was made and granted “ the next 
day, which followed the day of preparation,” i.e., on the Sab¬ 
bath, the day after our Lord’s crucifixion. Various reasons have 
been suggested for St. Matthew’s unusual circumlocution, and 
his avoidance of the ordinary word “ Sabbath.” Some com¬ 
mentators, both ancient and modern, think that by selecting this 
phrase the evangelist wished to designate the Sabbath more 
emphatically as a day of rest and thus to lay stress upon the 
illegality of the Jews’ action. It is, however, more probable 
that we have here an expression borrowed from Christian usage. 
As the followers of Christ habitually called the day of His death 
the Parasceve, i.e., day of preparation, St. Matthew speaks 


Gutachten, 2 ;* 202-208. 




26 o THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


of the day after the Parasceve in order to make it quite clear to 
his readers that the sepulchre was sealed and a guard set on the 
day next after our Lord’s death. 

Accordingly on this day the chief priests and Pharisees, mem¬ 
bers of the Sanhedrin, went to Pilate and stated what they 
feared and desired. They went as a deputation on behalf of 
the whole council. We cannot decide with certainty whether 
their interview with Pilate took place in the morning 1 or in the 
evening 2 of the Sabbath; good arguments can be brought for¬ 
ward in support of both views, but on the whole it seems more 
likely that the Jews went to Pilate in the morning, because their 
hatred and fear would impel them to take with the least delay 
possible all precautionary measures. It is not surprising that 
the Sanhedrists, being already tortured by an uneasy conscience, 
disregarded the law regarding the Sabbath, and approached the 
palace of the Gentile procurator heedless of the defilement that 
they would thus incur. They probably thought that while they 
could make good for the violation of the Sabbath and cleanse 
themselves from the legal defilement, they could not make good 
the harm that might arise from delay on their part. The San¬ 
hedrists were, moreover, not likely to feel much scruple in break¬ 
ing the Sabbath if thus they had an opportunity of expressing 
their hatred of the crucified Messiah. It was, therefore, in all 
probability early 3 on the following day that the Jews approached 
Pilate, saying, “ Sir, we have remembered that that seducer said, 
while he was yet alive: ‘ After three days I will rise again.’ ” 
The word “seducer” was the expression of the hatred of the 
Sanhedrists. Six months before his death the Messiah had been 
described at a public meeting of the Sanhedrin as a seducer of 
the people, and His adherents were said to have been seduced 
by Him. 4 We can see indeed from St. John’s gospel that this 
serious accusation had been brought against Him much earlier 
and that some of the populace had concurred in it, for a few 
days before the meeting of the Sanhedrin to which we have 
just alluded, some of the multitude, acting under the influence 
of the Sanhedrists, spoke of Jesus as seducing the people. 5 The 
Jews now repeated the same charge after His crucifixion, de- 


1 Acta Pilati, B. xii. 2 (Tisch. 315), Jansenius, and others. 

3 Reischl. and Bisp. 8 Acta Pilati. 

4 Compare John vii. 47. 6 John vii. 12. 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


261 


daring Jesus to be a seducer, because they said that although He 
was a sinner, 1 He had taught at the instigation of the devil 2 
that He was the Messiah and the Son of God, had worked 
miracles with the help of the devils, 3 and had stirred up the 
people to resist the law of Moses, and the Roman supremacy. 

Though the Sanhedrists had the courage to malign our 
Saviour after His death, they looked forward with considerable 
anxiety to the future, having remembered His words that He 
would rise again after three days. At the very beginning of 
His public ministry Jesus alluded in symbolical language to His 
approaching death and resurrection, 4 but the plain, definite pre¬ 
diction of them was made only to His disciples, and St. Matthew 
tells us 5 that after Peter’s solemn profession of faith this sub¬ 
ject formed a chief part of the instructions given by our Lord. 
If it is asked how the Sanhedrists had heard of this prediction, 
we may reply that in course of time it probably became more 
widely known, or else Judas may have given them information 
regarding it. It is, of course, possible that they had by this 
time some suspicion of the true meaning of Christ’s sayings 
at the judicial proceedings before the Sanhedrin. 

The Sanhedrists, therefore, requested Pilate to give orders for 
the tomb to be guarded, lest the disciples should steal the body 
of Jesus, and then cause disturbances by spreading false reports 
of His resurrection. The details are so completely in harmony 
with the*whole state of affairs that it is impossible to doubt their 
historical accuracy. If it is asked why the Sanhedrists did not 
take steps to guard the body as soon as it was removed from the 
cross, the evangelist supplies the answer, for he says that they 
did not remember the prediction until after our Lord was laid 
in the sepulchre. Moreover, this point cannot be urged against 
the authenticity of the narrative, since history furnishes many 
instances of men who, though their schemes were well planned 
and carefully considered, failed to take some one important 
factor into account. Some critics maintain that the fear felt 
by the Jews was groundless, and therefore any report of it must 
necessarily be liable to suspicion. But the Jews had undoubtedly 
observed all that took place at the burial of Jesus, and what they 
saw did not allay their apprehensions. Distinguished men had 

1 John ix. 24. 2 John viii. 48. 8 Matthew xii. 24. 

4 John ii. 19. 6 xvi. 21. 



262 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


boldly come forward and buried Jesus with great honor; it 
would not be long before the vast multitude of His adherents 
recovered their courage, and great indeed would be the danger 
if a report of His resurrection was circulated. The attitude of 
the people was such that the danger would be great even if His 
resurrection were purely fictitious. The Sanhedrists had good 
reason for their alarm, and there is no ground for distrusting 
St. Matthew’s account. In their anxiety they told Pilate that 
the last error would be worse than the first. They looked upon 
Jesus as a deceiver, and upon His followers as deceived, but in 
reality they had deceived themselves and the whole nation. This 
self-deception was already ominous, for their Messiah had been 
taken away from them; it was intensified when punishment was 
inflicted soon after upon His murderers, — the terrible punish¬ 
ment which Josephus has described in such realistic language 
in his Jewish Wars. 

Pilate could not refuse the Sanhedrists’ request, because they 
based it upon a desire to preserve peace and order, but his curt 
answer indicated his annoyance and showed that he wished to 
have nothing more to do with the whole affair. 1 We see from 
the next chapter in St. Matthew’s gospel that the guard consisted 
of Roman soldiers, and not of the Jewish guards ; when Pilate 
said, “ You have a guard,” he meant that the men were at the 
Sanhedrists’ disposal. Josephus tells us that at great festivals 
Roman soldiers were stationed at many points in the Temple 
to keep order, 2 and some of these men could be employed by the 
Sanhedrists to guard our Lord’s sepulchre. Some commenta¬ 
tors 3 think that the soldiers who had been on duty at the cruci¬ 
fixion were now appointed ta watch the tomb. We know noth¬ 
ing as to their number; there may have been four, or possibly 
an entire guard detachment of sixteen men, but the author of 
the apocryphal Acta Pilati 4 is certainly guilty of exaggeration 
in stating that Pilate gave the Jews a body of five hundred sol¬ 
diers for the purpose of guarding the sepulchre. In addition to 
the guard, the sepulchre was sealed, which could be done in two* 
ways: either strings were passed across the stone blocking the 
entrance, and sealed at both ends and also onto the stone, or 

1 Jansenius: significavit se invitum rebus ipsorum ulterius se inimiscere 

3 Ant. xx. 5, 3; 8, ii ; B. J. ii 12, 1; v. 5, 8. 

8 Corn, a Lap. and Jansenius. 

4 B. xii. 2 (Tisch. 316). 



CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL 


263 

seals were attached to the cross-beam that kept the stone in 
place. Many commentators refer to the manner in which Darius 
sealed the stone when Daniel was cast into the den of lions; we 
read there that “ a stone was brought and laid upon the mouth 
of the den, which the king sealed with his own ring and with 
the ring of his nobles, that nothing should be done against 
Daniel . 1 The care with which the sepulchre was sealed and 
guarded manifested, on the one hand, the intense hatred and 
mad fury of the Jews, but on the other hand it serves to confirm 
our faith, for all that the Jews accomplished by their proceed¬ 
ings was to render the fact of Christ’s resurrection absolutely 
certain . 2 


Tabular Survey of the Events occurring between the Last 
Supper and the Burial of Christ 

Holy Thursday 

The Paschal Supper: Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist, beginning 
about 7 p.m. and ending shortly before midnight. 

Good Friday 

1. The agony in the Garden and the seizure of Jesus about midnight. 

2. Examination of Jesus by Annas soon after midnight. 

3. Night session of the Sanhedrin from between 1 and 2 a.m to 3 a.m. 

Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy. 

4. Immediately after His condemnation Jesus is insulted and ill treated, 

first by the Sanhedrists in the council chamber, and, after leaving it, 
by the attendants. 

5. Morning session of the Sanhedrin at about 5 a.m. Jesus is handed over 

to Pilate. 

6. The first examination of Jesus by Pilate, before 6 a.m. 

7. Jesus is insulted by Herod. ' 

8. Pilate's attempts to save Him. p b b , between 6 and 7 A . M . 

9. Jesus is scourged and mocked. V b ’ tween 6 and „ A . M . ?) 

10. Ecce Homo. 

11. Formal condemnation of JesusJ 

12. The way of the cross, and the crucifixion of Jesus, between 9 a.m. and 

noon (or between 11 a.m. and noon?). 

13. Darkness from noon until 3 P - M - 

14. Jesus dies at 3 p.m. . 

1 e Wonderful occurrences immediately after His death. 

1 6. A soldier opens his side with a lance after 3 p.m. 

17. Jesus is laid in the tomb about 5 p.m. 

Holy Saturday 


The sepulchre is sealed and a guard set, probabl y during the morning. 
'1 Jerome, ad loc.: ut diligentia eorum nostrae fidei proficeret. 


Dan. vi. 17- 






Part II 

THE GLORY OF JESUS CHRIST 






SECTION I 

CHRIST'S RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


TN this section we have to discuss the mutual relation of the 
accounts given by the four evangelists of what took place at 
the Resurrection and of our Lord’s self-manifestations to the 
disciples. Further, we must consider the points peculiar to each 
evangelist. A harmonistic discussion of this subject is extremely 
interesting, but presents many difficulties. 

I. The Accounts of the Four Gospels 

St. Matthew agrees with the other evangelists in saying that 
certain women visited the sepulchre very early on Easter Sunday. 
He alone records the wonderful events that took place there after 
our Lord’s resurrection, viz., the earthquake, and the descent 
from heaven of an angel who rolled back the stone, filling the 
soldiers on guard with terror. St. Mark and St. Luke also speak 
of the conversation between the angel (or angels) and the 
women, but only St. Matthew and St. Mark say that the women 
were commissioned to tell the apostles that Christ had risen and 
would go before them into Galilee, where they should see Him 
again. It is only from St. Matthew’s gospel that we learn how 
Jesus met the women as they were hurrying back to the city 
after a visit to the sepulchre, and, as they took hold of His 
feet and adored Him, that He repeated the message to the 
apostles which the angel had already given them. Peculiar to 
St. Matthew is the account of the return of the guards to the 
city and their report to the chief priests; in fact this evangelist 
alone gives us any information concerning the watch set to 
guard the sepulchre. Beyond these statements, as to the events 
that occurred early in the morning and in the forenoon at the 
sepulchre, on the way to the town, and in the town itself, St. 
Matthew tells us nothing except that Jesus met His eleven 
apostles on a mountain in Galilee, previously designated by 


268 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Him, and there commissioned them to teach all nations. There¬ 
fore St. Matthew records only two appearances of our Lord: 
first, the one to the women who had visited the sepulchre on 
Easter Sunday, and second, the one to the apostles in Galilee, 
more than a week later. 

St. Mark’s account of the women’s visit to the sepulchre is, as 
we have already seen, shorter than St. Matthew’s, but he adds 
the detail that they wondered who would remove the stone for 
them, and that on their arrival they found it rolled back. Like 
St. Matthew, he says that the angel sent the women to carry the 
news to the apostles, but he mentions Peter separately. St. Mark 
does not allude to our Lord’s meeting with the women, but says 
that they fled from the sepulchre, because trembling and fear had 
seized them. He refers very briefly to the appearances of our 
risen Saviour. He describes how Mary Magdalen met her Mas¬ 
ter on the morning of the resurrection, and says that Christ 
appeared first to her. He just mentions our Lord’s meeting with 
the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and speaks rather 
more fully of His appearance to the assembled apostles, His 
repetition of their apostolic commission, and His promise of the 
powers to be bestowed upon the faithful. We hope to show in 
a subsequent section that this appearance took place in Jerusalem, 
just before the Ascension. Thus St. Mark mentions three occa¬ 
sions on which our Lord appeared after His resurrection: (i) on 
the morning of Easter Sunday He appeared to Mary Magdalen; 
(2) in the forenoon of the same day He appeared to the two 
disciples at Emmaus, and (3) he appeared probably on the 
very day of His ascension to all the apostles. All these three 
appearances took place in Jerusalem or in its immediate 
neighborhood. 

St. Luke’s account of the women’s visit to the sepulchre is 
brief, but contains some characteristic features, and his remark 
at its conclusion supplements the reports given by the other 
evangelists. He agrees with St. Mark in saying that the women 
went to the sepulchre, taking with them spices to anoint our 
Lord’s body, but he describes more fully their great alarm and 
their behavior. His account of their conversation with the 
angels at the sepulchre has two peculiarities: (1) he speaks of 
two angels, whereas St. Matthew and St. Mark mention only 
one; (2) he does not allude to the message that the women were 


RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 269 

to convey to the apostles, but he records the angel’s statement 
that Jesus had foretold His own death and resurrection. With 
even more emphasis than St. Matthew does St. Luke insist upon 
the fact that the apostles refused to believe the women’s story. 
After a short reference to the visit paid by Peter to the sepulchre, 
St. Luke enumerates three appearances of our risen Lord, viz., 
(1) to the disciples at Emmaus, and (2) on the same day to 
these two disciples and the eleven apostles, and (3) once more 
to the apostles. The appearance last mentioned by St. Luke may 
probably be identified with the last mentioned by St. Mark. 
There is, moreover, an allusion to our Lord’s appearance to St. 
Peter. Thus St. Luke records four occasions on which Jesus 
was seen after His resurrection; viz., on Easter Sunday He 
appeared to St Peter, to the two disciples at Emmaus, and, late 
in the evening, to the apostles, to whom He appeared again on 
the day of His ascension. In every case He was seen either in 
or near Jerusalem. St. Luke alone tells us that our Lord proved 
the necessity of His resurrection by reference to prophecies in 
the Old Testament. 

St. John’s account differs considerably from those of the 
synoptic evangelists. He just mentions the women’s visit to the 
sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection, but goes on to 
describe how Mary Magdalen ran to tell the apostles that the 
stone had been removed. A detailed and vivid description fol¬ 
lows (1) of the visit paid to the tomb by St. Peter and St. John, 
and (2) of four appearances of our Lord, viz.: (a) to Mary 
Magdalen as she stood by the sepulchre after the two apostles 
had gone away; (b) to all the apostles, with the exception of 
Thomas, on the evening of Easter Sunday; (c) eight days later 
to all the apostles, including Thomas, and (d) to seven disci¬ 
ples at the Lake of Tiberias in Galilee, where, after the miracu¬ 
lous draught of fishes, our Lord bade the apostles eat, and then 
appointed Peter to be the supreme shepherd of the universal 
Church. Thus in St. John’s gospel we read of four occasions 
when Jesus appeared, — three in Jerusalem and one in Galilee. 
In giving these detailed accounts St. John plainly intended to 
strengthen the apostles’ faith in the reality of Christ’s resurrec¬ 
tion, and in the essential identity of the body with which He 
rose and His previous body. We shall have to bear these facts 
in mind when we deal again with the subject. In two respects 


2 7 o THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

the accounts given by St. John and St. Matthew resemble each 
other. St. Luke and, we think, St. Mark, record only those 
appearances which occurred in Judea, whereas the other two 
evangelists refer also to Galilee. Moreover, the latter tell us 
how our glorified Redeemer bestowed apostolic authority upon 
the eleven; St. Matthew says that the apostles were commis¬ 
sioned to teach all mankind, and St. John that they received 
power to forgive sins, and that Peter was appointed head of the 
universal Church. 

We have also to consider the persons to whom Jesus appeared 
according to the statements of the evangelists. On the morning 
of Easter Sunday He was seen first by Maty Magdalen, and soon 
afterwards by the other women, when they came to pay a second 
visit to the sepulchre. A comparison of the accounts given by 
the synoptic writers shows that this group of women consisted 
of Mary (whom St. Matthew calls “the other Mary” to distin¬ 
guish her from our Lord’s mother, while St. Mark and St. Luke 
describe her as the mother of James), Salome, the wife of Zebe- 
dee, and a certain Joanna, who may probably be identified with 
Joanna the wife of Herod’s steward Chusa, mentioned by St. 
Luke in chapter viii, verse 3. St. Luke adds that there were other 
women with them, but the order in which he mentions them 
shows that our Lord’s mother was not present. Jesus appeared 
then to Simon Peter, the chief of the apostles, but we know no 
details of this occurrence, which is just mentioned by St. Luke, 1 
although we can infer from the context that it took place on 
the day of the resurrection, before He met the two disciples at 
Emmaus. Of the latter St. Luke mentions only one, Cleophas 
by name: the theories of ancient commentators regarding 
the other will be considered in the section dealing with this 
subject. 

The evangelists record five occasions on which Christ ap¬ 
peared to the apostles collectively: late in the evening of Easter 
Sunday, when Thomas was absent; a week later at the same 
place in Jerusalem when Thomas was present; on a mountain in 
Galilee; in Jerusalem on the day of the Ascension; and, as the 
fifth appearance, His meeting at the Lake of Tiberias with 
seven men, five of whom were certainly apostles, since St. John 


* xxiv. 34. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 271 

says that Jesus there showed Himself again to the “disciples,” 
and plainly classes this appearance with the other appearances 
of our Lord to the apostles. 1 

Did not our risen Lord show Himself to His mother? The 
evangelists are silent on this point, and give no indication from 
which we can derive an answer to this question. They tell us 
nothing of Our Lady from the beginning of her divine Son’s 
agony until His ascension. They record the words that He 
addressed to her from the cross 2 and say that after the Ascen¬ 
sion she was. persevering in prayer with the disciples and the 
other women. 3 

The silence of Holy Scripture, however, by no means justifies 
the inference that Jesus never appeared to His mother between 
His resurrection and ascension. Recent commentators hardly 
allude to this question, but it was often discussed by earlier 
writers, who, as a rule, answer it in the affirmative. It is re¬ 
markable that they seldom or never refer to any testimony of 
previous authors, but base their argument upon Our Lady’s dig¬ 
nity and position. A few instances may be given. Rupert of 
Deutz, who wrote during the first half of the twelfth century, 
says that Christian piety makes us desire to contemplate Mary’s 
excessive joy when her risen Son proclaimed His triumph to 
her, perhaps first of all human beings, and permitted her to kiss 
the sacred scars of His wounds. In spite of the definite state¬ 
ment in Mark xvi. 9, Rupert tries to find justification for his 
assumption that Mary was the first to see our Lord after He had 
risen from the dead. 4 Maldonatus remarks briefly that it was 
only fitting for Christ to have appeared first to His mother, and 
at the same time he rebukes those commentators who expend 
much ingenuity in uprooting this ancient belief from the hearts 
of the faithful. 5 His explanation of the word icpCnov in Mark 
xvi. 9 will be discussed later. 

Cornelius a Lapide 6 holds the same opinion, which, he says, 


1 xxi. 14. 

2 John xix. 25-27. 

8 Acts i. 14. 

4 Rupertus abbas tuitiensis de officiis divinis, lib. 7, c. 25 (Migne, 170, 
cob 205-208). 

5 Maid, ad Matth. xxviii. 16: Primum quidetn matri suae apparuisse, 
non quod evangelistae dicant, sed quod fieri decuerit, credendum est. 

6 Comm, ad Matth. xxviii. 2, 10. 



272 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

is communis doctorum et fidelium sensus, and based upon Mary’s 
sufferings during the Passion, her dignity as mother of God, and 
her Son’s regard for her. 

It cannot be denied that the reasons which he brings forward 
render it highly probable that our Lord showed Himself to His 
mother after His resurrection. 


Apparitions of Christ after His Resurrection 


No. 

Reference 

To whom He 
appeared 

Time 

Place 

Attendant circumstances 

1 

John xx. 

11-18 
Mark xvi. 
9-11 

Mary Mag¬ 
dalen 

Early on 
Easter Sunday 

Near the sep¬ 
ulchre 

Mary Magdalen is commissioned 
to tell the apostles of our Lord’s 
approaching Ascension. 

2 

Matthew 

xxviii. 

8-io 

The women 
visiting the 
sepulchre (ex¬ 
clusive of 
Mary Mag¬ 
dalen) 

On Easter 
Sunday 

On the way 
between the 
sepulchre and 
Jerusalem 

The women are commissioned 
to tell the apostles to go to 
Galilee. 

3 

Luke xxiv. 
34 

Simon Peter 

Some time on 
Easter Sunday 



4 

Luke xxiv. 

13-35 . 
Mark xvi. 
12, 13 

The two dis¬ 
ciples at Em- 
maus, one of 
whom was Cle- 
ophas 

In the after¬ 
noon of Easter 
Sunday 

On the way 
to Emmaus 

Christ teaches the disciples how, 
according to the Scriptures, it 
was necessary for Him to pass 
through suffering in order to at¬ 
tain to glory. They recognize 
Him at the breaking of bread. 

5 

Luke xxiv. 

36-43 

John xx. 
19-33 

The apostles, 
Thomas a- 
lone being 
absent 

Late in the 
evening of 
Easter Sunday 

At Jerusalem 
(in the Cenac- 
ulum) 

Jesus appears when the doors 
are shut; displays His hands, feet, 
and wounded side, and confers 
upon the apostles power to for¬ 
give sins. 

6 

John xx. 
34-39 

The apostles, 
Thomas be¬ 
ing present 

A week after 
the Resurrec¬ 
tion 

At Jerusalem 
(in the Cenac- 
ulum) 

Tesus appears a second time 
when the doors are shut, and dis¬ 
plays His wounds to Thomas, 
who then makes his confession of 
faith. 

7 

John xxi. 
1-17 

Seven disci¬ 
ples, of whom 
five were cer¬ 
tainly apostles 

Soon afiter 
the octave day 
of the Pasch 

Beside the 
Lake Tiberias 

Miraculous draught of fishes. 
Meal eaten near the lake. St. 
Peter is appointed to be supreme 
shepherd of Christ’s flock. 

8 

Matthew 

xxviii. 

16-30 

1 Cor. 
xv. 6 

The apostles 

After our 
Lord’s appear¬ 
ance near the 
Lake of Tibe¬ 
rias 

On a moun¬ 
tain in Galilee 

The apostles receive authority 
over the whole world and all man¬ 
kind. Institution of the Sacra¬ 
ment of Baptism. 

9 

Mark xvi. 

14-18 
Luke xxiv. 
44-49 

The apostles 

On Ascension 
day 

At Jerusalem 

Our Lord speaks of the effects 
which the teaching of the gospel 
will produce in the faithful. He 
declares that He has repeatedly 
pointed out the necessity of His 
suffering, and reveals to the apos¬ 
tles the meaning of the Scriptures. 





















RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


273 


Order of our Lord’s Apparitions 


I. According to St. Augustine. 
(de consens evang. 3, 83) 

1. Ad monumentum mulieribus. 

2. Eisdem iterum regredientibus 
a monumento in itinere. 

3. Petro. 

4. Duobus euntibus in castellum. 

5. Pluribus in Jerusalem, ubi non 
erat Thomas. 

6. Ubi eum vidit Thomas. 

7. Ad mare Tiberiadis. 

8. In monte Galilaeae secundum 
Matthaeum. 

9. Quod dicit Marcus “novissime 
recumbentibus.” 


According to Leonhard Hug 
(Gutachten, 2, 208-222) 

1. To Mary Magdalen. 

2. To Peter (Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. 
xv. 5). 

3. To the disciples at Emmaus. 

4. To the apostles (John xx. 19- 
23; Luke xxiv. 36-45; 1 Cor. xv. 5). 

5. To 500 disciples (1 Cor. xv. 6). 

6. To James (1 Cor. xv. 7). 

7. To the apostles (John xx. 
24-30). 

8. At the Lake of Tiberias (John 
xxi. 1-24). 

9. On the mountain of Galilee 
(Matthew xxviii. 16, etc.; Mark xvi. 
15, etc.). 


2. According to St. Jerome 
(Epist. ad Hedibiam) 

In quaest. 3-5 he discusses the oc¬ 
casion on which Christ appeared to 
the women, and arranges them in 
the following order: 

1. To Mary Magdalen and Mary 
wife of Cleophas, as recorded by St. 
Matthew. 

2. To Mary Magdalen alone, on 
her return to the sepulchre, as re¬ 
corded by St. John. 

St. Jerome remarks (quaest. 5) 
that the order is reversed by other 
commentators. 

(So also St. Thomas Aquinas, 
Jansenius, and others.) 

According to Rudolf Comely 
(Introductio, 3, 301, 302) 

1. To Mary Magdalen at the sep¬ 
ulchre. 

2. To the other women on the 
road. 

3. To the disciples at Emmaus. 

4. To Peter. 

5. To the apostles, Thomas being 
absent. 

6. To the apostles, Thomas being 
present. 

7. To the apostles on a mountain 
in Galilee. 

8. To a few disciples near the 
Lake of Tiberias. 

9. To the apostles in Jerusalem 
(Mark xvi. 14-18; Luke xxiv. 44- 
49 ). 


II. The Women’s Visit to the Sepulchre 


Matthew xxviii. 1-2 

1. And in the end of the sabbath 
when it began to dawn towards the 
first day of the week, came Mary 
Magdalen and the other Mary, to see 
the sepulchre. 

2. And behold there was a great 


Mark xvi. 1-2 

1. And when the sabbath was 
past, Mary Magdalen and Mary the 
mother of James, and Salome 
brought sweet spices, that coming, 
they might anoint Jesus. 

2. And very early in the morning 




274 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Matthew xxviii. 3-4 

earthquake. For an angel of the 
Lord descended from heaven, and 
coming, rolled back the stone, and 
sat upon it: 

3. And his countenance was as 
lightning and his raiment as snow. 

4. And for fear of him, the 
guards were struck with terror, and 
became as dead men. 

Luke xxiv. 1, 2 

1. And on the first day of the 
week very early in the morning they 
came to the sepulchre, bringing the 
spices which they had prepared. 

2. And they found the stone rolled 
back from the sepulchre. 


Mark xvi. 3-4 

the first day of the week, they come 
to the sepulchre, the sun being now 
risen. 

3. And they said one to another: 
Who shall roll us back the stone 
from the door of the sepulchre? 

4. And looking they saw the stone 
rolled back. For it was very great 


John xx. i, 2 

1. And on the first day of the 
week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, 
when it was yet dark, unto the sep¬ 
ulchre and she saw the stone taken 
away from the sepulchre. 

2. She ran, therefore, and cometh 
to Simon Peter, and to the other dis¬ 
ciple whom Jesus loved, and saith to 
them: They have taken away the 
Lord out of the sepulchre, and we 
know not where they have laid him. 


St. Mark’s account of the resurrection begins at a point an¬ 
terior to that of the other evangelists, for he speaks, not only 
of what took place on Easter Sunday, but of the preparations 
made by the women on the evening before. As we have already 
seen, our Lord’s body was probably not anointed before burial. 
As the Sabbath was close at hand, everything had to be done 
hurriedly, and the spices were simply sprinkled between the body 
and the winding sheet, the latter being steeped in costly per¬ 
fumes. Impelled by love and gratitude the women resolved to 
complete the honorable task that lack of time caused them now 
to leave unfinished. According to St. Luke’s account 1 they 
began to prepare spices as soon as they had returned home on 
the evening of the crucifixion, and then rested on the Sabbath. 
St. Mark tells us that, as soon as the Sabbath was over, i.e., 
after sunset on Holy Saturday, Mary Magdalen, Mary the wife 
of Alphaeus and mother of James, and Salome, purchased more 
spices to supplement what they had already provided, with a 
view to anointing the Body on the next morning. Among the 
Jews it was quite usual to transact business as soon as the sun 
had set on the Sabbath, and so the women would have no diffi- 


xxiii. 56. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 275 

culty in buying the spices in readiness for the morrow. When 
morning dawned, they set out for the sepulchre, their hearts 
being filled wth love and gratitude. Among the little band were 
Mary Magdalen, the other Mary, i.e., Mary, sister to our Lord’s 
mother, wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, and mother of James the 
Less and Joseph, Salome, wife of Zebedee, and mother of James 
the Great and of John, and, finally according to St. Luke, Joanna, 
wife of Chusa, steward to Herod Antipas, and other women 
whose names are not mentioned. Of them all, Mary Magdalen 
occupied the most prominent position, and for this reason her 
name stands first in the list given by the synoptic writers, and 
she was the only woman to whom St. John alludes. All the 
evangelists say that the women came early; they set out at day¬ 
break, before sunrise. 

Some commentators think that St. Mark assigns a rather later hour for 
their visit to the sepulchre than St. Luke and St. John. Those who take 
this view assume either that the women came twice, or that St. Mark is 
somewhat inaccurate. A close examination of the three texts shows, how¬ 
ever, that the statements can easily be reconciled. Some writers think that 
St Matthew represents the women as visiting the tomb on the Saturday. 

The women who hastened to the sepulchre had looked on 
when Jesus was laid there on the previous Friday , 1 and had 
observed how the entrance was blocked with a great stone. 
They asked one another anxiously who would remove the stone 
for them, and the fact that this was the topic of their conversa¬ 
tion as they approached the tomb, shows them to have been 
unaware that the Jews had sealed the sepulchre and that it was 
guarded by Roman soldiers. Their ignorance is quite explicable, 
for St. Luke tells us explicitly that they rested on the Sabbath , 2 
and therefore it cannot be used as an argument against the 
historical accuracy of the statement that the tomb was guarded. 

No sooner did they come near the sepulchre, than they saw 
the great stone rolled aside and lying near the entrance. The 
accounts given by the evangelists show plainly that the women 
noticed the stone first, not the open cavity. Hence St. Mark’s 
account on the size of the stone stands at precisely the right 
place, although it is undeniable that their knowledge of its 
weight caused the women to wonder anxiously who would roll 


1 Compare Luke xxiii. 55. 


xxiii. 56. 




276 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

it aside for them. St. Luke says briefly that the women came 
to the sepulchre and found the stone rolled back. 

Did Mary Magdalen go forward with the other women, after seeing that 
the stone was rolled back, or did she leave them and return at once to the 
city to carry the news to the apostles Peter and John? This question is 
important in its harmonistic bearing, and especially with reference to estab¬ 
lishing the sequence of events on Easterday. St. John supplies the key to 
its solution. After saying, like the other evangelists, that Mary Magdalen 
saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre, he uses the particle therefore, 
which shows that her running to tell the apostles was the immediate result 
of her seeing the stone. Another consideration lends further support to 
his view. As the women entered the sepulchre, they saw an angel, who told 
them that Jesus had risen from the dead. Now Mary Magdalen only told 
the apostles that some one had taken away their Lord’s body, and on her 
return to the tomb, when the angel asked her why she was weeping, she 
said, “ They have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid 
him.” She gave a similar reply to our Lord Himself, when He met her, and 
asked the cause of her sorrow. It would have been impossible for her to 
speak thus if she had seen the angels and heard their message, even though 
she did not yet believe in the resurrection, and was still wavering between 
hope and fear. If she had seen the angels, surely she would have spoken 
of them to the apostles. We may therefore conclude that she had hurried 
back to the city as soon as she saw that the stone was rolled back from the 
entrance of the tomb. 

The wonderful events at the sepulchre immediately after our 
Lord's resurrection and before the women’s arrival. St. Mat¬ 
thew alone records these events. No mortal eye beheld the 
actual resurrection of Christ, the Lord of life and death, but 
there is unquestionable testimony to the fact of its occurrence. 
St. Mark says in general terms that Jesus rose early the first day 
of the week. As the women visited the sepulchre very early 
in the morning and found it empty, we must follow the Fathers 
and almost all commentators in believing that our Lord went 
forth triumphant from the grave at the first sign of dawn. 
Some think, with far less probability, that He arose at midnight. 
The former opinion finds expression in the hymn aurora lucis 
rutilat, cum rex tile fortissimus victor surgit de funere . 1 

Our Lord’s triumph over death was made known to the guards 
by a sign from heaven. An angel announced to Mary that 
she should be the mother of the Messiah, an angel proclaimed 
to the shepherds the birth of the Saviour of the world, and, in 
the same way a messenger from heaven first gave testimony 


Compare Baronius, Ann. ad a. 34, n. 1 73 -^ 77 ; Sylveira, ix. 1, 2. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 277 

of the fact that the Lord had risen. An angel of the Lord, so 
states St. Matthew, descended from heaven, and his coming 
was accompanied by a great earthquake. This served to at¬ 
tract the attention of the guards to what had taken place, and 
to make them recognize the angel as a messenger from heaven. 
The evangelist makes it quite clear that the stone was rolled 
back by the angel and not removed by the earthquake. The 
object of the stone’s removal was to convince, first the sol¬ 
diers and then the women, that the tomb was empty and 
that Jesus had risen again. It was not rolled back on His 
account, for the Fathers are unanimous in thinking that He 
went forth while the sepulchre was still closed and sealed, just 
as, at His birth, Mary’s womb was not opened, and as, not long 
afterwards, He appeared to the disciples when the doors were 
shut. The earthquake probably affected only the immediate 
neighborhood of the sepulchre, for there is nothing to suggest 
that the women were aware of it. The soldiers’ alarm was in¬ 
creased by the appearance of the angel, whose face was bright 
as lightning, and his garment white as snow. These things 
showed him to be a messenger from heaven, and reflected the 
glory of our risen Saviour , 1 and the guards felt such intense fear 
that they “ became as dead men,” and took to flight, so that the 
women on reaching the tomb found no soldiers there. 


III. The Angel 

Matthew xxviii. 5-7 

5. And the angel answering, said 
to the women: Fear not you: for I 
know that you seek Jesus who was 
crucified. 

6. He is not here, for he is risen, 
as he said. Come, and see the place 
where the Lord was laid. 

7. And going quickly, tell ye his 
disciples that he is risen: and behold 
he will go before you into Galilee; 
there you shall see him. Lo, I have 
foretold it to you. 


and the Women 

Mark xvl 5-7 

5. And entering into the sep¬ 
ulchre, they saw a young man sitting 
on the right side, clothed with a 
white robe: and they were aston¬ 
ished. 

6. Who saith to them: Be not af¬ 
frighted; you seek Jesus of Naza¬ 
reth, who was crucified: he is risen, 
he is not here, behold the place 
where they laid him. 

7. But go, tell his disciples and 
Peter that he goeth before you into 
Galilee; there you shall see him, as 
he told you. 


1 Jansenius: utrumque serviebat ad illustrandum in . tenebris sepulchri 
omnia et ad testandam simul angeli et resurrectionis gloriam . 




278 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Luke xxiv. 3~8 


3. And going in, they found not 
the body of the Lord Jesus. 

4. And it came to pass, as they 
were astonished in their mind at this, 
behold two men stood by them in 
shining apparel. 

5. And as they were afraid, and 
bowed down their countenance 
towards the ground, they said unto 
them: Why seek you the living with 
the dead? 


6. He is not here, but is risen. 
Remember how he spoke unto you, 
when he was yet in Galilee, 

7. Saying: The son of man must 
be delivered into the hands of sinful 
men, and be crucified, and the third 
day rise again. 

8. And they remembered his 
words. 


The women who went out early on Easter Sunday to visit 
the sepulchre were deemed worthy to be the first to receive the 
glad tidings of the resurrection, and were at the same time 
commissioned to bear the news to the apostles. Mary Magdalen 
had hastened back to the city as soon as she perceived from a 
distance that the stone blocking the entrance to the tomb was 
rolled back, consequently those who actually reached the sepul¬ 
chre were Mary the wife of Alphaeus, Salome, Joanna the wife 
of Chusa, the King’s steward, and some others whose names 
are unknown. 

The state of the tomb when the women arrived. The stone 
was lying beside the entrance, and the guards stationed there by 
the Jews had fled, but in their place an angel was watching the 
empty sepulchre, ready to testify to the fact of our Lord’s resur¬ 
rection and to convey the tidings to the apostles. 


When an angel is sent to convey some special message to men, he gen¬ 
erally appears in the form of a youth. This was the case at the holy sep¬ 
ulchre, and it accounts for the fact that St. Matthew speaks of an angel, 
while St. Mark calls him a young man. According to these two evangelists 
the women beheld only one angel, but St. Luke says that there were two. 
It is probable that only one spoke, and therefore he alone is mentioned by 
St. Matthew and St. Mark. Some commentators suggest, with less proba¬ 
bility, that St. Luke mentions two angels because he confuses the vision 
seen by the women with that seen subsequently by Mary Magdalen, when 
two angels were present. 

The glistening garments worn by the angels in human form were a type 
of the joyful news that they brought to the women. According to St. Mark 
and St. Luke the latter had entered the sepulchre before they perceived the 
angel; St. Luke tells us that they did not see anyone until they had found 
the tomb empty, and were at a loss how to account for the absence of our 
Lord’s body. The following seems to be the sequence of events: The angel, 
who had been seated on the stone that he had rolled back, entered the actual 
sepulchre before the women arrived. When they came up, they went into 
the antechamber, whence they could look into the inner part of the sep- 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 279 

ulchre, and while they were wondering what had become of their Lord’s 
body the angel appeared to them. St. Matthew tells us that he invited them 
to come and see the place where the Lord was laid, and these words show 
plainly that, when the other evangelists speak of the women as entering the 
sepulchre, we must understand the outer and not the inner chamber. St 
Augustine 1 takes another view of the matter. He thinks that the women 
saw the angel in the antechamber and not in the actual tomb. It is natural 
for weak and sinful human beings to feel alarm at any heavenly apparition; 
we find instances of this fear in both the Old and New Testaments, and it 
is not surprising that the women were terrified on suddenly beholding an 
angel in the form of a youth clothed in glistening garments. They were 
already disposed to feel afraid, since, as we can see from Mary Magdalen’s 
words and from the angel’s mode of accosting them, they believed that our 
Lord’s body had been stolen. 

The angel’s message. While the women stood amazed and 
speechless, the angel proceeded to give them the glad tidings of 
their Lord’s resurrection and to communicate to them His in¬ 
structions. First of all, however, it was necessary to calm their 
fear, so that they might be able to grasp the full significance of 
the news that they were about to hear, and consequently the 
angel began by saying, “ Fear not you.” The pronoun stands 
at the end of the sentence both in the Greek and in the Latin 
text, and is emphatic on account of its position. For the women, 
who believed in Christ, His resurrection was no reason for 
alarm; but it was otherwise with the Jews, who refused to believe 
and had nailed Him to the cross. The Messiah had risen again 
to gather the faithful around Him, as He had foretold, and to 
call the Jews to answer for their sins. The angel went on to 
state the fact of the resurrection: “He is not here, for He is 
risen.” The women were invited to convince themselves of this 
truth by surveying the place where the body had been laid. They 
were reminded that their beloved Master had foretold that He 
would rise again, and this was an additional reason for believing 
the angel’s message. St. Luke records how the angel recalled 
the fact that, while they were still in Galilee, Jesus had spoken 
of His Passion and Death, and of the glorious Resurrection that 
would follow. According to St. Paul’s testimony the resurrec¬ 
tion of Christ is of fundamental importance in the work of 
redemption, because it confirms most unmistakably the truth of 
our Redeemer’s teaching and places His divinity beyond all 
question. This being so, it was essential that the testimony to 


De cons, evang. 5, 24. He is followed by Jansenius. 



28 o THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


the actual occurrence of the resurrection should be most firmly 
established. 

The angel went on to charge the women to carry the news 
of Christ’s resurrection to the apostles, and to convey His mes¬ 
sage to them. They were to go quickly, that the disciples might 
be released from their overwhelming sorrow, and the news was 
to be carried to the disciples and Peter. There can be no doubt 
that this expression assigns to St. Peter a unique position among 
the followers of Christ. He would, of course, be included 
among the disciples, and commentators are divided as to the 
reason why he is singled out for special mention. It behooved 
Peter to have a very exceptional comprehension of the chief fact 
in Christianity, our Lord’s resurrection from the dead, because 
he was the chief of the apostles; or, because he had thrice denied 
his Master, he needed assurance that he had not thereby ceased 
to belong to the apostolic band; or, because he had denied Christ 
through the agency of a woman, he was to be called to faith in 
Christ’s resurrection through the agency of women. The first 
interpretation seems the best . 1 

The women who came to visit the sepulchre were the first 
messengers of the gospel, and we find other women missionaries 
mentioned in St. Paul’s epistles. 

In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel, St. Bede writes 
about this fact: Felices feminae, quae angelico doctae oraculo 
triumphum resurrectionis mundo annuntiare meruerunt ac mor¬ 
tis imperw/m, quam Eva serpentino seducta aMatu induxit, prae- 
dicate dirutum. In the commission to carry the news to the 
apostles a command 2 was given to the women to tell the apostles 
to go to Galilee, whither their risen Master would precede them, 
as He had foretold, and where they should see Him again. The 
same order was given to the disciples by our Lord Himself, not 
long after . 3 

Before their departure for Galilee the disciples saw our Lord on several 
occasions, and so we may very reasonably ask why, immediately after the 
resurrection, they received orders, both directly and also through the 
women, to go to Galilee and meet Him there. The primary reason was that 

1 The views of early commentators are given by Sylveira, ix. i, 17; those 
of later scholars by Schegg and Schanz. 

2 In Matthew xxviii. 7 elirov is rendered in the Vulgate praedixi. This 
verb has here, as is usual in classical writers, the meaning of to order, to 
ordain, and conveys the idea of a positive command. 

3 Compare Matthew xxviii. 10. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 281 


before His Passion our Saviour had told His followers that He would pre¬ 
cede them into Galilee, after He had risen from the dead. * 1 St. Mark em¬ 
phasizes this fact in his account of the angel’s speech to the women, 2 and St. 
Matthew indicates it also in his description of Christ’s appearance in Gal¬ 
ilee. 8 There are, however, other reasons why the risen Messiah chose to 
meet His disciples in Galilee. It was there that He had begun His ministry, 
had spent most of His public life, had gathered about Him a great many 
disciples, had called the apostles, and had sent them out on their first apos¬ 
tolic mission. After His resurrection He associated with His followers 
longer and more intimately in Galilee than in Jerusalem, and there He con¬ 
ferred upon them the power to teach with authority, and appointed Simon 
Peter to be their head. 

Some commentators assume that, according to St. Matthew’s gospel, pre¬ 
vious appearances of our Lord in Jerusalem cannot have taken place, because 
the disciples were ordered, just after the resurrection, to go to Galilee, and 
because St. Matthew mentions only one occasion on which Christ appeared 
to them, and this was in Galilee. There is no justification for such an 
opinion. From the whole style and composition of St. Matthew’s gospel it 
is possible to see why he restricted himself to a description of only one occa¬ 
sion on which Christ appeared to His disciples, viz., in Galilee. 


IV. Peter and John at the Sepulchre 


John xx. 3-10 

3. Peter therefore went out, and 
that other disciple, and they came 
to the sepulchre. 

4. And they both ran together, 
and that other disciple did outrun 
Peter, and came first to the sep¬ 
ulchre. 

5. And when he stooped down, he 
saw the linen cloths lying: but yet 
he went not in. 

6. Then cometh Simon Peter, fol¬ 
lowing him, and went into the sep¬ 
ulchre, and saw the linen cloths 
lying, 

7. And the napkin that had been 
about his head, not lying with the 
linen cloths but apart, wrapt up into 
one place. 

8. Then that other disciple also 
went in, who came first to the sep¬ 
ulchre: and he saw, and believed. 

9. For as yet they knew not the 
scripture, that he must rise again 
from the dead. 

10. The disciples therefore de¬ 
parted again to their home. 


Luke xxiv. 12, 24 

12. But Peter rising up, ran to the 
sepulchre, and stooping down, he saw 
the linen cloths laid by themselves, 
and went away wondering in himself 
at that which was to come to pass. 

24. And some of our people went 
to the sepulchre, and found it so as 
the women had said, but him they 
found not. 


1 Compare Matthew xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 28. 

1 Mark xiv. 7. 8 Matthew xxviii. 16. 




282 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Simon Peter had been appointed head of the apostolic band, 
and John occupied the position immediately next to him, for 
which reason his name occurs just after that of Peter in the list 
of apostles in Acts i. 13. Early on Easter Sunday both hastened 
to the sepulchre, as soon as Mary Magdalen told them that their 
Lord’s body had been stolen. St. Luke twice mentions the fact 
of their coming to the sepulchre, and St. John gives a full and 
vivid account of their visit. He says that Peter and “ that other 
disciple” went out and came to the sepulchre. The fourth 
evangelist usually refrains from speaking of himself by name, 
but his description is so vivid, and so plainly written by an eye¬ 
witness, that we may safely conclude him to have been “that 
other disciple.” They both ran together, urged on by their ardent 
love of the Master whose loss they were still mourning, and 
eager to behold with their own eyes what had happened at the 
sepulchre. 1 

Early commentators are fond of pointing out that the eager¬ 
ness on the part of the two apostles should teach us to devote our 
time conscientiously to the service of God. Both apostles ran, 
but John outstripped Peter and was the first to reach the sepul¬ 
chre. Peter was an older man; John possessed greater agility, 
but not more intense love than Peter of his Master. 2 

On his arrival, John stooped down and looked into the sepul¬ 
chre through the low entrance, for he wished to see in what 
condition it was. He saw the linen cloths in which our Lord’s 
body had been wrapped for burial, but Simon Peter, not John, 
was the first who entered the sepulchre. Several reasons have 
been suggested for John’s delay. Probably in his reverence for 
Peter, he wished him to take precedence, since he was not only 
older, but was the chief of the apostles. 3 

Some think that John was afraid to enter the sepulchre at 
once, whereas Peter did not hesitate, being bolder and quick to 
act. St. Gregory the Great assigns a mystical interpretation to 
the whole episode. He says that John represents the synagogue 
(i.e., the Jews), which first received God’s commandments and 
heard the promises regarding Christ’s resurrection, but did not 

1 St. Thomas remarks that their running was signum ferventis devo- 
tionis. 

2 Jansenius: Petro tanquam aetate junior, corpore agilior ac robustior. 

* Lyranus: propter Petri reverentiam, quern expectavit, quia erat senior 
ipso et inter apostolos principalior. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 283 

go into the sepulchre, i.e., did not believe in the resurrection. 
Simon Peter on the other hand represents the Gentiles, who in 
faith obeyed the call, although they received it later. 1 St. Luke’s 
statement that Peter stooped down and looked into the sepulchre 
can be reconciled with St. John’s account. The fact of St. 
Peter’s going into the tomb does not preclude his having first 
looked in, but St. John records only his going in, as the more 
important and significant of the two actions. On St. Luke’s 
brief remark that Peter went away wondering in himself at that 
which had come to pass, much light is thrown by the fuller 
description given by St. John, who tells us with painstaking 
accuracy exactly what St. Peter saw in the tomb. The linen 
cloths in which the body had been wrapped lay apart from the 
napkin that had been about our Lord’s head, and which was 
folded up and lying by itself. There was no sign of disorder. 
We shall see later on why the evangelist describes so minutely 
the position of the cloths. Then “ that other disciple ” also went 
into the sepulchre, and, as he •solemnly declares, “ saw and be¬ 
lieved.” As the verb “ believed ” stands without its object, vari¬ 
ous interpretations have been suggested. St. Augustine and 
many other commentators after him 2 think that John only now 
believed Mary Magdalen’s report that the body of Jesus had 
been stolen. This theory is based upon the evangelist’s subse¬ 
quent statement that the apostles did not as yet understand the 
Scriptures, for this statement can only be interpreted as assign¬ 
ing a reason for their non-belief in the resurrection. 3 This line 
of argument has undoubtedly some weight, but most modem 
scholars follow St. John Chrysostom in thinking that John be¬ 
lieved in our Lord’s resurrection when he saw the state of the 
sepulchre. The following facts render the latter view more 
probable: (1) In the fourth gospel the word “believe” gen¬ 
erally means to accept the truths of salvation; (2) there is a 
close grammatical connection between the verbs “saw” and 
“believed”; (3) no other theory accounts for the evangelist’s 


1 Horn. 22; so also St. Thomas Aquinas, who refers to Rom. ix. 30, 31. 

2 Theophyl., Lyran., Estius, Menoch., Jansenius; reference is frequently 
made to St. Thomas, who, however, does not express a decided opinion, 
but merely quotes the theories first of St. Augustine and then of St. John 
Chrysostom. 

3 Jansenius quotes St August.: nam ista ignorantia non causat fidem 
resurrectionis sed potius infidelitatem. 



284 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


care to describe so precisely the orderly state of the sepulchre. 
Thieves would most likely have taken the linen cloths with them, 
certainly they would not have had time to arrange them in order; 
(4) St. Luke’s remark that Peter went away wondering at that 
which had come to pass bears out the second interpretation. 
If we accept it, St. John’s statement concerning the failure of 
the apostles to understand the Scriptures must be regarded as 
an attempt to account for their requiring to be convinced by 
means of their senses before they fully believed in our Lord’s 
resurrection. This circumstance, like many others, served 
to place the actual fact of the resurrection beyond all doubt. 
There we have the positive evidence of Holy Scripture against 
those rationalistic commentators who regard the resurrec¬ 
tion of Christ as a fiction, due either to the lively imagina¬ 
tion of credulous disciples or to an erroneous interpretation 
of passages in the Old Testament. After leaving the sepulchre, 
the two apostles returned to the city, to await the further course 
of events. 


V. Christ Appears 

John xx. 11-15 

11. But Mary stood at the sep¬ 
ulchre without, weeping. Now as 
she was weeping, she stooped down 
and looked into the sepulchre, 

12. And she saw two angels in 
white, sitting, one at the head, and 
one at the feet, where the body of 
Jesus had been laid. 

13. They say to her: Woman, why 
weepest thou? She saith to them: 
because they have taken away my 
Lord, and I know not where they 
have laid him. 

14. When she had thus said, she 
turned herself back and saw Jesus 
standing; and she knew not that it 
was Jesus. 

15. Jesus saith to her: Woman, 
why weepest thou? whom seekest 
thou? She thinking that it was the 
gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou 
hast taken him hence, tell me where 
thou hast laid him, and I will take 
him away. 


to Mary Magdalen 

Mark xvi. 9-11 

9. But he rising early the first 
day of the week, appeared first to 
Mary Magdalen, out of whom he 
had cast seven devils. 

10. She went and told them that 
had been with him, who were mourn¬ 
ing and weeping. 

11. And they hearing that he was 
alive, and had been seen by her, did 
not believe. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


285 


John xx. 16-18 

16. Jesus saith to her: Mary. 

She turning saith to him: Rabboni 
(which is to say, Master). 

17. Jesus saith to her: Do not 
touch me, for I am not yet ascended 
to my Father: but go to my breth¬ 
ren, and say to them: I ascend to my 
Fattier and to your Father, to my 
God and your God. 

18. Mary Magdalen cometh, and 
telleth the disciples: I have seen the 
Lord, and these things he said to me. 

General remarks. After carrying the news to the two apostles 
on the morning of Easter Sunday, Mary Magdalen followed 
Peter and John, as they ran to the sepulchre, and arrived there 
soon after them. We have seen in the preceding section that, 
when they had observed the state of the tomb, they returned to 
the city, but Mary lingered near the place where her Lord’s body 
had lain, being detained by her love and gratitude toward Him. 1 
St. Mark here alludes to the action which had called forth her 
intense devotion, and says explicitly that Jesus had cast out of 
her seven devils. St. Luke records this fact, 2 but says only that 
seven devils had gone forth from her; he does not state that 
they were expelled by our Lord. Mary Magdalen seems to have 
been literally possessed; she was not merely liable to diabolical 
suggestions in consequence of her evil life. Now, at the sepul¬ 
chre, she was deemed worthy to see, first the angels and then 
our Lord Himself, and, according to St. Mark, He appeared 
first of all to her. Only two evangelists record this meeting, 
and St. Mark mentions it very briefly, but St. John describes 
what preceded it as well as the meeting itself. In the next sec¬ 
tion we shall discuss the harmonistic relation between this 
paragraph and St. Matthew’s account of Christ’s appearance 
to the women on their way back from the sepulchre. 

The appearance of the angels. St. John tells us that Mary 
remained behind, after St. Peter and St. John had gone away, 
and that she stood outside the sepulchre, weeping. Her tears 
'flowed fast, and were the expression of her sorrow at not find¬ 
ing her Master’s body. She did not enter the place of burial, 

1 August.: infirmiorem sexum fortior figebat affectus. 

* viii. 2, 3. 




286 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


not because she shrank from it or because she feared to add to 
her grief, but she lingered outside in order to be better able to 
observe whatever happened inside or outside the sepulchre. 
Finally she stooped down so as to look into the tomb through 
the narrow opening, to make sure that her beloved Master was 
not there. She was richly rewarded, for she beheld within the 
sepulchre two angels in white garments sitting, one at the head 
and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. 1 
Peter and John had seen no angels in the sepulchre; for them 
it was enough to see the condition in which it was, but Mary 
Magdalen in her deep sorrow received comfort and instruction 
from heavenly messengers. The two angels were undoubtedly 
those who shortly before had appeared to the other women near 
the sepulchre; their white garments showed them to be sent by 
God to announce joyful tidings, and also symbolized the glory 
of our risen Lord. 2 St. John says that Mary saw the angels 
sitting, one at the head and one at the feet of the place where 
the body had lain. According to Toletus, by sitting where they 
did they meant to indicate that they were no longer guarding 
our Lord’s body, but showing that their position typified the 
task assigned to the apostles, viz., to preach the whole Gospel 
of Christ, from beginning to end. 3 

The angels asked Mary why she was weeping. The question 
was intended to draw her attention to them, to express theit 
sympathy with her grief, and to afford them an opportunity of 
proclaiming to her the glad tidings of Christ’s resurrection. 
The very form of the question suggests that she had no real 
reason for mourning. At once she replied, “ Because they have 
taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid 
Him.” This answer deserves notice on account both of its form 
and substance. Mary spoke without showing any sign of that 
fear which heavenly apparitions are wont to produce, and there¬ 
fore some commentators think that she did not recognize the 
men in glistening garments as angels. 4 It is, however, more 
probable that she felt no fear because her desire to find her 
Master’s body overpowered her to such an extent as to render 

1 Jansenius: in praemium illius constants desiderii. 

2 St. Thomas : per quod claritas resurrectionis et gloria resurgentis de- 
monstratur. 

3 St. Thomas quotes other mystical interpretations. 

4 St. Thomas : non angelos, sed homines esse putat. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 287 

her incapable of noticing even unusual occurrences. She took 
it for granted that others would share her feelings and anxiety 
and so her complaint seemed to her an adequate answer to the 
questions addressed to her by the angels. St. Thomas Aquinas 
remarks: dicendum est, quod vis amoris hoc agere solet in aniato, 
ut quod ipse semper cogitat, nullum alium credat ignorare. 

The apparition of Jesus. As Mary’s longing, tearful glance 
into the sepulchre was rewarded by a vision of angels, so did 
now her intense devotion to our Lord induce Him to appear to 
her. No sooner had she answered the angels’ question than she 
turned away and paid no further attention to them, for she 
caught sight of Jesus, although she failed to recognize Him. 
She turned away from the sepulchre because she was still think¬ 
ing of her Master, and seeking Him in every direction. It is 
most unlikely that she turned away because she heard the steps 
of someone approaching or because something in the angels’ be¬ 
havior suggested that another person was at hand. She did not 
recognize Jesus at once, owing to a change in His bodily aspect. 
It is usual to describe her want of perception to her inward 
disposition and incredulity regarding His resurrection. We are 
inclined to attach very little importance to this latter argument, 
based upon Mary Magdalen’s subjective attitude, because even 
our Lord’s disciples failed to recognize Him immediately on the 
occasions of His subsequent appearances, although they were 
already convinced of the reality of His resurrection and had 
seen their risen Master. 

Like the angels Jesus sought to attract Mary’s attention by 
asking her: “ Why weepest thou ? Whom seekest thou ? ” As 
the sepulchre was situated in a large garden, she might easily 
suppose the unknown man to be a gardener, even though he did 
not wear the ordinary clothes of a laborer. In reply to the 
question whence did our Lord obtain the clothes that He was 
wearing, Luthardt 1 says briefly that it was from the same source 
as that whence the angels obtained their garments. To this 
supposed gardener Mary addressed the question with which her 
thoughts were exclusively occupied, “ Sir, if thou hast taken 
Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him.” Many commen¬ 
tators have discussed her use of the word “ Sir.” 2 St. Augus- 


1 Das Johannes Evangelium, 2, 502. 


a Compare Sylveira, lx. 2 , 11. 



288 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


tine 1 suggests that she wished to be respectful to a man of 
whom she was asking a favor. She called our Lord simply 
Him, not mentioning His name, because her thoughts were so 
completely centred upon Him, that she took it for granted that 
even the supposed gardener would know whom she was seek¬ 
ing. 2 It is unlikely that Mary omitted to mention our Lord’s 
name to the stranger for the reason that he had overheard her 
conversation with the angels. Her concluding words, “ I will 
take Him away,” show the ardor of her love. She wanted to 
find the body of Jesus and restore it to its place in the sepulchre, 
and she spoke without considering whether she were strong 
enough to do so. Those who love Christ shrink from no diffi¬ 
culties, and St. Thomas remarks: mirabilis mulieris audacia , 
quam mortui non terret aspectus; et cujus valetudo ad grave 
mortui f units tollendum plus intentat quam possit. Sed hoc est 
quod dicitur (i Cor. xiii. 7) : caritas omnia sperat. 

Mary Magdalen, who did not recognize Jesus when she saw 
Him, knew Him on hearing His voice. At the moment when 
she was turning back toward the sepulchre, He uttered the one 
word “ Mary ” in His well-known tone, and at once she recog¬ 
nized Him, and all doubt as to His resurrection vanished. At 
the moment when her ears caught the familiar sound, her heart 
was enlightened by divine grace. 3 With one word our Lord 
revealed Himself, and in one word (Rabboni, Master) did Mary 
express her unbounded joy at having found Him who was the 
object of her devotion and for whom she had longed. Full of 
gladness and emotion she fell on her knees and attempted to 
embrace His feet, but our Lord forbade her to touch Him. 
Many reasons have been suggested for this prohibition; 4 some 
that are quite contrary to Holy Scripture, and others that are 
in bad taste we may disregard, and consider those only which 
may possibly be correct. Our Lord certainly did not utter these 
words for His own sake, because Fie allowed the other women 
to fall down before Him, clasp His feet and adore Him, 5 6 a nd 


1 Tact. 121 in Joann. 

2 Jansenius: amoris vehementia existimabat, omnem hominem cogitare, 
quod ipsa cogitabat. 

3 Jansenius: solita voce et gratia cor ejus feriens. 

4 Compare Sylveira ix. 2, 14, regarding earlier commentators, and Han 

Schegg, Schanz, and Luthardt on the views of modem scholars. 

6 Matthew xxviii. 9. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 289 

He actually invited the disciples to touch Him. 1 In discussing 
the question why our Saviour forbade Mary Magdalen to touch 
Him, we must consider: (1) the meaning of the expression that 
He employed; (2) His reason for speaking thus, and (3) the 
commission entrusted to her immediately afterwards. The 
Greek verb airreadai is not used of a momentary touch, but im¬ 
plies clinging to the object grasped. Mary seems, therefore, to 
have wished to detain Jesus and enjoy His company for some 
time, and this was what our Lord forbade, giving us His reason, 
“ I am not yet ascended to my Father.” His subsequent words 
throw light upon this statement: “ Say to them [my brethren] 
I ascend to my Father.” The present tense refers to something 
that will take place in the immediate future, not to anything 
actually present. We know that forty days elapsed between 
our Saviour’s resurrection and His return to His Father. If 
we bear these points in mind, we can explain Christ’s words thus: 
He refused to allow Mary Magdalen to detain Him then, because 
there would be time enough before His ascension for a con¬ 
versation such as she desired, and at that moment, instead of 
lingering by His side, she was to go and take His message to 
the disciples. This seems to be the most obvious interpretation 
of our Lord’s words, and it is described by Sylveira as genuina 
et germana. 

The words may, however, have a deeper meaning, and indicate 
the unbroken intercourse in heaven between Christ and His 
followers. We shall see that this sense may be assigned to them 
if we compare the reason given by our Lord, “ For I am not yet 
ascended to my Father,” with other utterances. In His fare¬ 
well discourse to the apostles, Jesus said that He must go away 
and prepare a place for them, and then come again and take 
them to Himself. 2 He went away at His ascension, He came 
back first when He sent the Holy Ghost to the disciples, and He 
takes His followers to Himself on their departure from this 
world. Thenceforth they are always in His presence, and de¬ 
light in the constant contemplation of their glorified Lord. The 
spiritual communion between the faithful on earth and their 
Saviour reigning in heaven is a preliminary step toward perfect 
union with Christ. It is based upon close connection with 


1 Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 27. 


2 John xiv. 2, 3. 



290 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Christ; and consists on His side in the mystical presence of His 
grace and in the sacramental presence when the glorified God- 
Man takes up His abode for a time in our hearts. On our side 
it consists in abiding in Christ, in holding fast to faith in Him, 
and in carrying out His teaching in our daily life. In this way 
we may distinguish two meanings in the words addressed to 
Mary Magdalen by our Lord after His resurrection. It is un¬ 
important, as far as the accuracy of this interpretation is con¬ 
cerned, whether she understood the full significance of her 
Master’s speech or not, for He had in view all the believers and 
not only the faithful servant to whom He spoke. The Church 
learns from historical events and is instructed by the Holy 
Ghost, who guides her into all truth, and so she is able to dis¬ 
cover a deeper meaning in many of her Lord’s utterances than 
those to whom they were actually directed could possibly 
perceive. 

Mary Magdalen was told, “Go to my brethren,” viz., the 
apostles. Many commentators follow St. John Chrysostom in 
thinking that our Lord called His followers brethren, in order 
to display His wonderful love of them, and to convince them 
that they were still His apostles, although they had taken flight 
and left Him. The term was therefore intended to encourage 
them. This explanation is no doubt correct, as far as it goes, 
but a further reason for our Lord’s use of the word was that, 
the work of redemption being accomplished, those who believed 
in Jesus had now become His brethren, children of God, and 
heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven. The message sent by Mary 
to the apostles was, “ I ascend to my Father and your Father, 
to my God and your God.” The Resurrection from the dead 
was to be followed by the Ascension, and our Lord spoke of the 
latter—that henceforth His disciples might turn their thoughts 
to heaven. He also wished to tell them that ere long all those 
glorious promises would be fulfilled which He had connected 
with His Ascension, especially in His farewell discourse. 1 
Christ called God “my Father and your Father” because He 
was the real Son and they had been adopted as the children of 
God. This difference in sonship causes a difference also in the 
relation between God the Father and Christ on the one hand, 


1 Compare John xiv. 2, 3; xvi. 7, 8. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 291 

and God the Father and the faithful on the other, hence our 
Lord added “my God and your God.” In obedience to her 
Master’s instructions, Mary Magdalen went to the apostles and 
told them that she had seen Jesus, and gave them His message. 
According to St. Mark she found them mourning and weeping, 
and unwilling at first to believe her words. We can see from the 
evangelists’ accounts that some time elapsed before they thor¬ 
oughly believed in Christ’s resurrection. 


VI. Christ Appears to the Women 


Matthew xxviii. 8-10 

8. And they went out quickly 
from the sepulchre with fear and 
great joy, running to tell his dis¬ 
ciples. 

9. And behold Jesus met them 
saying: All hail. But they came up, 
and took hold of his feet, and 
adored him. 

10. Then Jesus said to them; 
Fear not. Go, tell my brethren that 
they go into Galilee, there they shall 
see me. 

Mark xvi. 8 

8. But they going out, fled from 
the sepulchre. For a trembling and 
fear had seized them: and they said 
nothing to any man; for they were 
afraid. 


Luke xxiv. £-11 

9. And going back from the sep¬ 
ulchre, they told all these things to 
the eleven, and to all the rest. 

10. And it was Mary Magdalen, 
and Joanna, and Mary of James, and 
the other women that were with 
them, who told these things to the 
apostles. 

11. And these words seemed to 
them as idle tales; and they did not 
believe them. 


This section is difficult from the harmonistic point of view, 
and many different opinions have been expressed regarding its 
contents. It deals with the women’s return from the sepulchre, 
our Lord’s appearance to them on their way, His message to the 
apostles and the other disciples, and their reception of the news 
brought by the women. From a comparison of St. Mark’s and 
St. Luke’s accounts we learn that the women who went back 
from the sepulchre together were Joanna, wife of Chusa, 
Herod’s steward, Mary, mother of James the Less, and Salome, 
mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee. St. Luke 
alludes to other women who accompanied these, but their names 
are unknown. The same evangelist seems to imply that Mary 



292 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Magdalen was one of the little band, but this point will be dis¬ 
cussed later, when we deal with the harmonistic difficulties. 

It is almost universally assumed that the three passages quoted 
at the head of this section relate to the same occurrence, viz., 
to the return of the women to the city after visiting the sepulchre 
early on Easter Sunday. It is very probable that St. Matthew 
connects with his account of their return on Easter Sunday morn¬ 
ing a description of our Lord’s appearing to the women on the 
occasion of a subsequent visit to the sepulchre. This harmonistic 
question will be considered later. 

The women hastily left the tomb and hurried from the place. 
There was a twofold reason for their hurried departure, — the 
angel had bidden them convey with all speed the news of the 
Lord’s resurrection and His message to the apostles, and their 
own state of mind impelled them to make haste, for they were 
filled with joy and fear at the same time. They feared because 
they had seen the angels and been entrusted with a message 
from heaven, since every one who receives particular favors 
from God becomes more fully aware of his own unworthiness 
and unimportance and is overwhelmed with anxiety and fear. 
They rejoiced because they had heard good news, and were 
commissioned to convey the same to the apostles. Their alarm 
was due solely to what they had witnessed at the sepulchre, not 
to any doubt regarding the truth of Christ’s resurrection. We 
have in the case of the prophet Isaias a striking instance of the 
manner in which a godly man may be overpowered with fear 
on receiving from God a revelation even though it is accepted 
with unquestioning faith. 1 

St. Matthew describes an apparition of Jesus to the women 
on the occasion probably not of their first but of a later visit 
to the sepulchre. Our Lord greeted them with the words, “ All 
hail.” The Prince of Peace uttered the greeting of peace with 
reference to the work of redemption that He had just completed, 
that work whereby He had established peace between God and 
man, and peace, too, among men. 2 The majestic form of their 
glorified Master and His gentle greeting aroused feelings of joy 
and fear in the women’s anxious hearts. They cast themselves 
down in front of Him, clasped His feet and adored Him. No 


1 Isa. vi. 6; compare Knabenbauer and others. 


2 Ephes. ii. 14 seqq. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 293 

longer did they treat Him with their accustomed familiarity, 
but by their actions they gave expression to their devotion and 
reverence. 

As their Master’s majesty had filled them with alarm, He 
sought to soothe them, and said, “ Fear not.” Until they had 
recovered their composure, they were incapable of listening to 
His message, but when they were calm they received from Him 
the commission already given them by the angels; they were to 
tell the disciples to go to Galilee, where they should see their 
risen Lord. Why did Jesus repeat the message already given 
by the angels? and why did He call His disciples brethren? The 
importance of the message and of the promise connected with 
it is enough to account for its repetition. It would be hard for 
the disciples in Jerusalem to leave the place where such great 
events had occurred, and therefore it was expedient that their 
Lord’s command and promise should be repeated and thus 
impressed upon their minds. They were addressed with the 
honorable title of brethren because their risen Master wished to 
display His love for them and His desire to lift them out of their 
state of discouragement, because He desired to indicate that His 
glorified body was a real body, identical with that in which 
He had known them before, and, lastly, because He aimed at 
giving expression to the truth that through His work of re¬ 
demption they had been made children of God and brethren of 
Christ. 1 

According to St. Mark, the women told no one anything of 
what they had seen at the sepulchre and on their way back, but 
St. Matthew and St. Luke say that they carried the news to the 
apostles. St. Mark seems, however, to suggest a means of recon¬ 
ciling the two accounts. He alone says that trembling and fear 
had seized them, and in their physical and mental distress they 
may have been unable at first to speak to anyone, although sub¬ 
sequently they went to the apostles and told them what had 
occurred. A few commentators think that the evangelists are 
describing different events, 2 others assume that St. Mark’s 
statement refers to the women’s behavior on their way back from 
the sepulchre to the city; they were speechless with fear, so that 
they said nothing to any of the people whom they met. 


1 Compare Maid, and Jansenius. 


2 For instance, Cornely, 3, 301. 



294 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


The harmonistic difficulty turns upon the question: May we identify 
Christ’s appearance to the women, described by St. Matthew, with His ap¬ 
pearance to Mary Magdalen, recorded by St. John? Many Protestant com¬ 
mentators and a few modern Catholic scholars follow Maldonatus and think 
that the two accounts refer to one appearance. Maldonatus, however, con¬ 
fesses that he can quote no one except St. Athanasius in support of his 
opinion. 1 2 3 

There are, however, several good reasons for not identifying them. St. 
John’s description reads as if our Lord appeared to Mary Magdalen when 
she was alone; and St. Mark also mentions no one else, and asserts that she 
was the first to see our Lord, although he enumerates the other women who 
visited the sepulchre. On the other hand, St. Matthew speaks quite definitely 
of several women who witnessed our Lord’s appearance. Mary Magdalen 
saw Him in the garden, as she stood close to the tomb; the other women 
met Him on their way back to the city; the former was forbidden to touch 
Him, the latter “took hold of His feet.” St. John not only fails to record 
the messages sent to the apostles, but his very detailed account seems to 
leave no place for the sending of any messages, whereas in the synoptic gos¬ 
pels they occupy a prominent position. It is not a satisfactory explanation 
of these differences to assume that St. Matthew gives only a brief summary 
of what St. John describes more fully, and therefore we must follow the 
great majority of commentators * and regard the two occasions as distinct. 8 

The following reasons lead us to believe that Christ appeared to the 
women on their return, not from their first but from a subsequent visit to 
the sepulchre; 4 their flight from the sepulchre was so precipitate as almost 
to preclude any interview with our Lord on the way; the words of the dis¬ 
ciples at Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 22-24) show plainly that the women who 
visited the sepulchre early in the morning had not seen Jesus when they told 
the apostles what had occurred. St. Matthew therefore speaks of a later 
visit to the sepulchre, on the way back from which the women saw our 
Lord. 5 * It seems quite natural that during the anxious hours early on Easter 
Sunday a second visit should have been paid to the tomb, especially as, when 
the women came for the first time, they were ordered to carry the news 
quickly to the city. 

Thus the sequence of events during the morning and forenoon 
of Easter Sunday is as follows: 


1 Compare Maid, on St. Matthew xxviii. 9. 

2 Jerome, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Lyr., Corn, a Lap., Calmet, Jan- 
senius (junior), Knabenbauer, and others. 

3 Maldonatus has recourse to very forced explanations in order to re¬ 
move the difficulties in the way of identifying the two appearances of our 
Lord. He thinks that the word primo in Mark xvi. 9 refers not to the 
women but to the apostles, or else that the word was inserted because 
Jesus addressed Mary Magdalen alone. According to St. Matthew, how¬ 
ever, our Lord spoke to the other women also. Maid, alters ( starts ad 
monumentum ) conversa est retrorsum (John xx. 14) to rediens a monu- 
mento. In order to reconcile the scene in the garden near the sepulchre 
with that on the road to Jerusalem, he says: Christum revertentibus quidem 
jam mulieribus sed nondum egressis aut egressis quidem sed quasi ad hor- 
tum euntem Christum apparuisse. 

4 August de cons, evang. 3, 69. 

6 So Corn, a Lap., Calmet, Jansenius (the younger), Laurent, Knaben¬ 

bauer, and others. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


295 


1. At daybreak the women went to the sepulchre. Mary 
Magdalen, on seeing the stone rolled away from the entrance, 
turned back and hastened to tell Peter and John. The others 
went on to the sepulchre and there saw the angels. 

2. On receiving the news from Mary Magdalen, Peter and 
John ran to the sepulchre. 

3. Mary Magdalen followed them, and was the first to see 
our Lord near the sepulchre. 

4. Jesus appeared to the other women on their return from 
a second visit to the sepulchre. It is impossible to decide with 
certainty whether or not Mary Magdalen accompanied them on 
this occasion. 


VII. The Guards at the Sepulchre and the 
Chief Priests 


Matthew xxviii. 11-15 


11. Who when they were de¬ 
parted, behold some of the guards 
came into the city, and told the chief 
priests all things that had been done. 

12. And they being assembled to¬ 
gether with the ancients, taking 
counsel, gave a great sum of money 
to the soldiers, 

13. Saying: Say you, His disciples 


came by night, and stole him away 
when we were asleep. 

14. And if the governor shall hear 
of this, we will persuade him, and 
secure you. 

15. So they taking the money, did 
as they were taught; and this word 
was spread abroad among the Jews 
even unto this day. 


St. Matthew alone of the evangelists records both the setting 
of the watch on Holy Saturday and the compact between the 
chief priests and the soldiers on Easter Sunday. He saw in 
these occurrences unmistakable evidence of our Lord’s Mes¬ 
sianic character and divinity, as well as of the inexcusable 
obstinacy of the Jews. 1 

In the case of the representatives of Judaism were fulfilled 
the words ascribed to Abraham in the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus: 2 3 “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
will they believe if one rise again from the dead.” 

The evangelist tells us that after the women had returned 
from the sepulchre to the city, some of the guards also came to 
report to the chief priests what had taken place. We do not 

1 Jansenius: illustre fuit hoc testimonium yeritatis et ab inimicis datum 

quod ut principibus erat irrefragabile ita pervicacia inexcusabilis. 

3 Luke xvi. 31. 




296 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

know at what hour the soldiers left the sepulchre. Most com¬ 
mentators assume that they fled as soon as they had recovered 
from their first terror, so that the women on their arrival found 
no one there. A few exponents, 1 however, think that the sol¬ 
diers left the sepulchre at the same time as, or even later than, 
the women, having remained at their posts paralyzed with fear, 
or possibly having watched the course of events from a distance. 
The first theory is the most satisfactory, and we may believe 
that the soldiers brought the news of a great earthquake near 
the place of our Lord’s burial, and of the mysterious removal 
of the heavy stone from the entrance of the tomb, which was 
then seen to be empty. The evangelist’s remark that “ some of 
the guards came into the city” must be understood as referring 
to the particular individuals who had been actually on duty. It 
is very improbable that some of the soldiers went to the city 
while others remained at their posts. 

The chief priests, being greatly alarmed at this unexpected 
news, at once summoned an assembly of the ancients, to deter¬ 
mine what could be done, and, as a result of their deliberation, 
they offered the soldiers a large sum of money on condition 
that they should falsely declare the body of Jesus to have been 
removed by His disciples, while they themselves were asleep. 
St. Matthew mentions the chief priests and ancients of the 
people as taking part in this discussion; in other places 2 he 
alludes to these two classes when speaking of the Sanhedrin, 
and we may assume that the whole council was convoked to 
deliberate concerning a matter so extraordinary and so important 
in its bearing upon Judaism. 3 The measures adopted again 
evinced the implacable hatred of Jesus, the unusual obstinacy 
and almost incomprehensible folly, on the part of the Sanhedrists. 
They were convinced of the truth of the soldiers concerning 
the wonderful things that had taken place at the sepulchre, 
for, had it been otherwise, they would have felt bound to 
request the Roman authorities to take action, but nevertheless 
they themselves would not believe, and so they did their utmost 
and employed the most shameful means to prevent the multitude 
from believing in Christ’s resurrection. Many commentators 
compare the action of the Sanhedrists in the case of the soldiers 

1 e.g., Tirinus and Jansenius. 2 Matthew ii. 4; xx. 18. 

3 Thus Maid., Lamy, and Jansenius. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 297 

with their procedure in the case of Judas; for thirty pieces of 
silver the Jews induced the latter to betray his Master, and by 
offering a sum of money they now sought again to defeat the 
mission of the Messiah. According to St. Jerome, the money 
used for this reprehensible purpose was taken from the Temple 
treasury. 1 

There is nothing surprising in an attempt to bribe Roman 
soldiers. Jugurtha, a most ambitious man, expected to succeed 
in carrying out his plans because everything in Rome could be 
bought for money, 2 and his experience caused him to utter the 
famous dictum, 0 urbem venalem, si emtorem invenerit. The 
corruption was even worse in the provinces. St. Augustine calls 
the statement which the soldiers were ordered to make, an 
infelix astutia . 3 

The fact that the clever Sanhedrists wished the guards to make so ab¬ 
surd and incredible a statement has made some people doubt the truth of 
the whole story. Rationalistic scholars think it absolutely impossible that 
the chief priests should have acted so unwisely, and do not scruple to pro¬ 
nounce the evangelist’s account to be a mere legend. They argue thus: If 
we had lived at the time of Christ, we should have taken possession of His 
body as soon as it was removed from the cross, and so no deception would 
have been possible. Since the Sanhedrists failed to take this precautionary 
measure, everything that is said to have occurred afterwards in this connec¬ 
tion is simply untrue. Yes, the Sanhedrists blundered not only by this omis¬ 
sion, but also by having the sepulchre guarded by soldiers, and the result 
was that nothing short of an unmistakable lie could cause the apostles to be 
charged with stealing our Lord’s body. The historical accuracy of St. 
Matthew’s account cannot be doubted or even questioned, unless we deny 
God’s power in working out His scheme of salvation, unless we shut our 
eyes to the fact that hatred makes men blind, and unless we consider the 
Sanhedrists incapable of taking a foolish step. History records many in¬ 
stances of great men who, at critical moments in their lives, have had 
recourse to very ill-advised measures. 

The soldiers exposed themselves to great danger by comply¬ 
ing with the wish of the Sanhedrists, since any lack of vigi¬ 
lance on the part of a sentry was severely punished. It is 
true that the men appointed to guard the sepulchre were, strictly 
speaking, not on military duty, because they were employed 
privately by the chief priests, to whom, and not to the military 

1 Comm, ad loc .: pecuniam , quae ad usus templi data fuerat, vertunt in 

redemptionem mendacii, sicut antea triginta argenteos dederant Judae pro¬ 
ditori. Compare Tirinus. 

2 Sallust, Jugurtha, c. 8: Romae omnia venalia esse. 

8 In Ps. lxiii. 7: si dormiebant , quid videre poterantf si nihil viderant, 
quomodo testes sunt. 



298 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

commander, they reported what had happened. It would, how¬ 
ever, involve a serious breach of military discipline to act as the 
priests suggested, and the men knew that they had every reason 
to fear punishment should the matter reach the ears of the pro¬ 
curator, or be made the subject of judicial inquiry. The San- 
hedrists tried to calm their fears by promising to soothe the 
procurator, and thus to secure the soldiers' safety. They might 
reasonably hope to achieve this by their intercession, because 
Pilate had plainly shown 1 that he wished to have nothing more 
to do with the matter. 

The evangelist concludes his account of this episode with the 
remark that the soldiers' false statement regarding the theft 
of our Lord’s body was still current among the Jews at the 
time when he wrote his gospel. 


VIII. The Disciples on the Way to Emmaus 

Luke xxiv. 13-26 


13. And behold, two of them went 
the same day to a town which was 
sixty furlongs from Jerusalem 
named Emmaus. 

14. And they talked together of 
all these things which had happened. 

15. And it came to pass, that, 
while they talked and reasoned with 
themselves, Jesus himself also draw¬ 
ing near went with them. 

16. But their eyes were held, that 
they should not know him. 

17. And he said to them: What 
are these discourses that you hold 
one with another as you walk, and 
are sad? 

18. And the one of them, whose 
name was Cleophas, answering, said 
to him: Art thou only a stranger in 
Jerusalem, and hast not known the 
things that have been done there in 
these days? 

19. To whom he said: What 
things? And they said: Concerning 
Jesus of Nazareth who was a 
prophet mighty in work and word 
before God and all the people. 


20. And how our chief priests and 
princes delivered him to be con¬ 
demned to death, and crucified him. 

21. But we hoped that it was he 
that should have redeemed Israel: 
and now besides all this, today is the 
third day since these things were 
done. 

22. Yea, and certain women also 
of our company affrighted us, who 
before it was light, were at the 
sepulchre, 

23. And not finding his body 
came, saying, that they had also seen 
a vision of angels, who say that he is 
alive. 

24. And some of our people went 
to the sepulchre, and found it so as 
the women had said, but him they 
found not. 

25. Then he said to them: O fool¬ 
ish, and slow of heart to believe in 
all things which the prophets have 
spoken. 

26. Ought not Christ to have suf¬ 
fered these things, and so to enter 
into his glory? 


Matthew xxvii. 65. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


299 


Luke xxiv. 27-35 


27. And beginning at Moses and 
all the prophets, he expounded to 
them in all the scriptures the things 
that were concerning him. 

28. And they drew nigh to the 
town whither they were going: and 
he made as though he would go far¬ 
ther. 

29. But they constrained him say¬ 
ing : Stay with us, because it is 
towards evening, and the day is now 
far spent. And he went in with 
them. 

30. And it came to pass, whilst he 
was at table with them, he took 
bread, and blessed and brake, and 
gave to them. 


31. And their eyes were opened 
and they knew him: and he van¬ 
ished out of their sight. 

32. And they said one to the other: 
Was not our heart burning within us, 
whilst he spoke in the way, and 
opened to us the scriptures ? 

33. And rising up the same hour, 
they went back to Jerusalem: and 
they found the eleven gathered to¬ 
gether, and those that were with 
them, 

34. Saying: The Lord is risen in¬ 
deed, and hath appeared to Simon. 

35. And they told what things 
were done in the way, and how they 
knew him in the breaking of bread. 


Mark xvi. 12, 13 

12. And after that he appeared in 13. And they going told it to the 
another shape to two of them walk- rest: neither did they believe them, 
ing, as they were going into the 
country. 

St. Mark merely records the fact that our Lord appeared to 
two disciples as they were going into the country; St. Luke, on 
the other hand, gives a very full and detailed account of this 
episode, which occurred late in the afternoon of Easter Sunday, 
on the way between Jerusalem and Emmaus, and at Emmaus 
itself. 

We are told that two of the disciples of those assembled in 
Jerusalem set out to walk to Emmaus. They were not apostles, 
for the evangelist says that on their return to the city they found 
the eleven gathered together. St. Jerome assumes that in all 
probability they belonged to the band of seventy disciples. One 
of them was named Cleophas (Greek, Cleopas), and from St. 
Luke’s words, “He [Jesus] went in with them” (v. 29), we 
may perhaps infer, as St. Jerome does, 1 that at least Cleophas 
was an inhabitant of Emmaus and possessed a house in the vil¬ 
lage. This Cleophas must not be identified with Cleophas, 
Clopas, or Alphaeus, husband of the other Mary, and father of 
James. In the Greek the names are not identical, one being 


Loc. Hebr.; Epist. 27; Epith. Paulae ad Eustoch. 





300 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

genuinely Greek, the other only a Greek form of a Hebrew name. 
A desire to identify the two men has caused the writers of some 
Greek MSS. to adopt another spelling. There are various con¬ 
jectures regarding the companion of Cleophas; 1 Origen calls 
him Simon; St. Ambrose gives his name as Amaon (Ammaon) ; 
in some of the Itala MSS. we find Ammaus; some commentators 
think that St. Luke is speaking of himself, some suggest that the 
second wayfarer may have been Simon Peter. 

Geographical question. The position of Emmaus, like that of many- 
other places mentioned in the Bible, is uncertain. Three different opinions 
exist regarding it, and there are three chief points which we must take into 
account when we attempt to determine its site. The village called Emmaus 
in the New Testament was sixty furlongs (about three hours’ walk) from 
Jerusalem; it was a fairly large place castellum), and the disciples 

went there and back in the course of Easter Sunday. According to a tra¬ 
dition dating from the time of the Crusades, and still generally accepted, 
Emmaus may be identified with the present Kubeibeh, an insignificant set¬ 
tlement lying northwest of Jerusalem on the caravan route to Jaffa; it now 
contains barely a hundred inhabitants, almost all of them Mahommedans. 
Quite recently the remains of a large church have been discovered there. 
The theory that the Emmaus mentioned by St. Luke is identical with Ku¬ 
beibeh gains support from the fact that careful measurements show the 
latter place to be exactly sixty furlongs from Jerusalem. 2 Several later com¬ 
mentators and a few modern scholars follow Eusebius and St. Jerome, 3 in 
identifying the New Testament Emmaus with a place of the same name men¬ 
tioned in the first book of Machabees, which was situated in the plain of 
Judea, and from the third century onwards was known as Nicopolis, al¬ 
though it is now called Amwas. Although besides the antiquity of the tra¬ 
dition there are other considerations supporting this theory, we cannot 
accept it, because Amwas is more than 160 furlongs, or, according to the Pil¬ 
grim from Bordeaux, 176 furlongs from Jerusalem. The difference between 
60 and 176 is so great that we cannot believe St. Luke to have meant such a 
distance by saying 60 furlongs. Moreover, Nicopolis (Amwas) was then 
not a village but a considerable town, and under the Roman government it 
was the capital of a toparchy. Sepp and others try to identify Emmaus 
with a village called Colonia, halfway between Kubeibeh and Jerusalem, and 
with another place that Josephus (B. J. vii. 6, 6) calls Emmaus, which ac¬ 
cording to the ordinary reading was 60, but according to a variant read¬ 
ing, 30 furlongs from Jerusalem. The present name of the place had its 
origin in the fact that Titus founded there a colony of eight hundred 
veterans. 

As they walked, the two disciples discussed the events that had 
recently taken place in Jerusalem, and revealed to each other 


1 Compare Tisch., ad loc. 

2 Kirchenlexikon, 4, 446 seqq. 

3 De locis Hebr.; compare Baron., Ann. ad a. 34, n. 193, 194; compare 
also Knabenbauer. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 301 

their opinions, hopes, and fears in the course of a conversation 
carried on with great vivacity, for both were devoted followers 
of tneir Master. Their devotion and sympathy were soon re¬ 
warded, and they experienced the fulfillment of the consoling 
promise: “ Where there are two or three gathered together in 
my name, there am I in the midst of them. 1 

Under the form of a wayfarer, walking quickly, Jesus caught 
up to them and joined them, without being recognized. St. 
Mark ascribes their failure to recognize Him to the fact that 
he appeared “ in another shape,” but St. Luke says that their 
eyes were held, so that they should not know Him. 

We seem to have two distinct reasons given for their lack of perception. 
Many commentators think that when St. Mark speaks of another shape he 
does not mean an alteration in the bodily form or in the countenance of our 
Lord, but only that by His manner and dress He gave the impression of 
being a stranger, who had come to Jerusalem for the festival. It is enough 
to state here one of the various arguments against this theory: the Greek 
word used by the evangelist refers directly to the form and outward ap¬ 
pearance of the human body, not to dress or behavior. Others think 
that a change had really taken place in our Lord’s appearance, but they 
ascribe it to the disfigurement produced by the suffering that He had under¬ 
gone. They assume that His face was so wasted and colorless as to be 
unrecognizable. 

This theory is in direct antagonism to the fact that Jesus had risen with 
a glorified body. Unscriptural, too, is the hypothesis that the process of 
glorification began at the Resurrection, but was not complete until the Ascen¬ 
sion, for that a body should rise in glory is not the result of a natural pro¬ 
cess, but the work of God’s omnipotence, and it is accomplished in a moment 
and not gradually. From the foregoing remarks we can see that the words 
“ in another shape ” refer to our Lord’s glorified body as distinguished from 
His previously not glorified body. He appeared to the disciples in alia 
effigie, i.e., in forma illustriori et splendidiori quam ante mortem . 2 We do 
not know to what extent our Saviour allowed His disciples to behold the 
radiance of His glorified body before His ascension, nor are we told how 
far He exerted His divine power to diminish its splendor. 

Christ’s glorified body being identical with His body before the passion, 
the disciples might have recognized Him, had they looked closely at Him, 
but God willed it otherwise. Here we have the reason alleged by St. Luke for 
their want of perception, — “ their eyes were held, that they should not see 
Him.” According to many commentators the failure was due to their men¬ 
tal disposition : either to their inconsolable sorrow at their Lord’s death, or to 
unbelief in His resurrection. The wording of the Biblical account does not, 
however, bear out this interpretation, but points decidedly to the action of 


1 Matthew xviii. 20. Bede remarks: loquentes autem de se Dominus ap¬ 
pro pinquans comitatur, ut et fidem resurrectiones mentibus eorum incendat, 
et quod facturum se promiserat (Matthew xviii. 20) impleat. 

2 De la Haye, tom. 23, 458 * 




302 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


some divine influence upon the disciples. 1 2 In fact, with regard to the man¬ 
ner in which the influence was exerted, a few think that the perceptive fac¬ 
ulty of the disciples was obscured; the majority, however, believe that their 
sense of sight was affected. 3 

Christ’s conversation with them explains why He wished them not to 
recognize Him at once; He desired them to open their hearts to Him with¬ 
out reserve, in order that He might instruct them, and enable them to under¬ 
stand more fully what His Messianic work really was, so that, when He 
revealed Himself to them, their joy might be the more intense. 

The conversation between Christ and the two disciples. Ac¬ 
cording to the reading of the Vulgate, our Saviour began the 
conversation by asking them two questions, viz., what they were 
discussing and why they were sad. The Greek re’ading, how¬ 
ever, is better supported, and according to it our Lord only asked 
them what was the subject of their discourse, and thereupon 
they halted and were troubled. One of them, Cleophas by name, 
replied by asking another question, expressing his surprise that 
of all the people in Jerusalem the stranger alone seemed to know 
nothing of the events of the last few days. Jesus asked for 
information, and thus gave the men an opportunity of confiding 
to Him what they believed about Him, what they thought of 
the significance of His work, and all their hopes and fears. 
They declared Jesus of Nazareth to be a prophet mighty in work 
and word, thus testifying to all mankind that He was sent by 
God. Further, they stated that He was recognized both by God 
the Father and by the Jews as “ mighty.” The gospels afford 
abundant evidence of the truth of this assertion. When Christ 
was transfigured on Mount Thabor a voice was heard from 
heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased: hear ye him.” 3 Thus all His actions were declared to 
be in conformity with the will of God, and His doctrine was 
pronounced the new law for mankind. Immediately before the 
close of our Lord’s public ministry a voice came from heaven 
saying, “ I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again” (viz., 
the name of God). 4 By this utterance God solemnly bore testi¬ 
mony to the fact that all the works of Jesus had hitherto tended 
to glorify His name, and that His passion, which was about to 


1 Lamy: impediebantur vi divina. 

2 According to Jansenius such an impedimentum was sive offusa oculis 
caligo, sive humor, sive aer interjectus, 

3 Matthew xvii. 5. 

4 John xii. 28. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 303 

follow, would glorify it yet further. The teaching and miracles 
of Jesus had forced the Jews to acknowledge Him as sent by 
God. At the close of the Sermon on the Mount the people were 
astonished that He taught as one having power; 1 they were 
amazed at His miracles and inclined to believe in Him as the 
Messiah, 2 and even the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin could not 
deny that He possessed miraculous powers. 3 Although Jesus 
proved by word and deed that He was the Messiah, the Jews 
did not believe in Him, and His miracles were, according to 
Caiphas, 4 the reason why they persecuted and crucified Him. 
The disciples on their way to Emmaus alluded very briefly to 
our Lord’s passion, merely saying that the Sanhedrin had handed 
Him over to Pilate to be condemned, and had crucified Him. It 
was strictly accurate to speak of the Sanhedrists as having cruci¬ 
fied Christ, for they had condemned Him to death, sent Him to 
Pilate, demanded His crucifixion and incited also the rabble to 
demand it (auctorem actionis pro ipso adore ponunt, Lamy). 
The disciples went on to open their hearts to the Companion 
and spoke of the hopes they had entertained and of the disap¬ 
pointment they felt. They said that they, unlike the Sanhe¬ 
drists, had believed Jesus to be the redeemer of the chosen 
people, and destined to fulfill the Messianic prophecies. They 
mentioned the expected Messiah, not by name but by reference 
to His characteristics; 5 the redemption, however, which they 
trusted He would have accomplished, was probably political, not 
religious or ethical. They looked forward to a release from 
Roman supremacy, and to the restoration of their former in¬ 
dependence and of the ancient splendor of Judaism. Their use 
of the past tense “ we hoped ” has led St. Augustine 6 and many 
others to think that hope had now given place to despair, but 
probably the past tense only means that their hope was diminish¬ 
ing. 7 Two things tended to make them despondent: Jesus, 
whom they had regarded as the Messiah, had died, and three 
days had elapsed since His death without their having heard any 
definite news of Him. They were intensely devoted to their 
Master, and so they spoke of two occurrences which seemed to 


1 Matthew vii. 28, 29. 

8 Matthew xii. 24 seqq. 

6 Compare Sylveira, ix. 3, 11. 

7 Lamy: indicant, jam aliquo modo 


2 Matthew xii. 23. 

4 Compare John xi. 47 seqq. 
6 Sermo 140, de tempore. 
animos despondere. 



304 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

afford them some ground for hope: the women, who visited the 
sepulchre early in the morning, had found it empty, and had 
seen a vision of angels, and learned that Jesus had risen again 
and was alive. Moreover, Peter and John had also found the 
tomb empty. The two disciples were still unaware that Jesus 
had appeared to Mary Magdalen and to the other women. 

They revealed their inmost thoughts, hopes, and fears to 
Jesus, who then proceeded to explain to them the true meaning 
of the Messianic revelation. He gently rebuked them, calling 
them foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things which the 
prophets had spoken. These words show why the disciples were 
wavering between hope and fear, and indicated that their be¬ 
havior was incompatible with a real belief in the Messianic 
prophecies. They misunderstood the promises given through 
the prophets, and consequently they had a mistaken idea of the 
Messiah and His work. Their lack of comprehension was due 
to their emotions, aims, and wishes. They desired and ex¬ 
pected the Messiah to be a great conqueror, who would secure 
the political independence and temporal prosperity of the Jews. 
The consequence was that the Jews fixed their attention exclu¬ 
sively upon the prophecies alluding to the glory of the promised 
Messiah, and even the best among them only accepted gradually 
and sorrowfully the Messianic descriptions which did not agree 
with their preconceived ideas. We have no right to blame the 
two disciples for their inability at his hour of trial to lay aside 
the erroneous opinions held by the entire nation. Even the 
apostles, immediately before our Lord's ascension, still held no 
clear comprehension of the Messianic kingdom. 1 The essential 
difference between the disciples and the Jews was that the 
former were willing to be taught and slowly arrived at the truth, 
while the latter obstinately hardened their hearts against Christ 
and persisted in their errors. 

Our Saviour, who reads all hearts, saw that the two disciples 
were willing to believe, and proceeded to instruct them. He 
pointed out to them that, according to God’s scheme of salvation, 
the Messiah promised to the Jews must necessarily pass through 
suffering before He could enter into His glory. The evangelist 
simply states the fact that Jesus referred to the Old Testament; 


1 Compare Acts i. 6. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 305 

we do not know which of the writers and passages He quoted, 
nor how He expounded them. In the same way did St. Paul, 
speaking in the synagogue at Thessalonica, prove from the 
Scriptures that Jesus the Messiah must necessarily have suffered, 
died, and risen from the dead. 1 , We see what effect this instruc¬ 
tion had upon the two disciples, for afterwards they said to 
each other, “ Was not our heart burning within us whilst He 
spoke on the way, and opened to us the Scriptures? ” His words 
made a profound impression upon them, and His elucidation of 
the Old Testament filled them with great joy, increased their 
confidence, and confirmed their faith in Him as the Messiah. 
They were astonished at their own blindness in not recognizing 
Jesus at once when He addressed them in language that altered 
their whole state of mind. 2 

Christ’s forerunner, who derived his light from the Light of 
the World, was called by our Lord a burning and a shining 
light, 3 and was able to show the Jews the way of salvation; 
how much more, therefore, may we apply to Christ Himself the 
Psalmist’s exclamation, “The words of the Lord are fire- 
tried,” 4 a fire able to inflame the hearts of men with love of 
everything that is beautiful and true? 

The change in the disciples’ minds manifested itself in their 
behavior after they reached Emmaus. St. Luke says that Jesus 
made as though He would go farther. It is not difficult to 
explain this statement. Although our Lord, being omniscient, 
knew that He would remain at Emmaus, for the sake of the two 
disciples he acted like a traveller who intended to walk on ( for - 
tasse progressus passus aliquot). He desired to stop at Em¬ 
maus, but only on condition that He was urged to do so, and 
He would have gone farther had He not been invited to stay. 
In order to give the disciples an opportunity of inviting Him, 
He behaved as though He intended to go on His way. We may 
therefore conclude that Jesus knew, while still on the road to 
Emmaus, that He would stop there; He knew at the same time 
that He would stop because the disciples would stand the test 
which He had designed for them. Therefore when on their 


1 Acts xvii. 2, 3. 

2 Tir.: quare non potuimus vel ex hoc solo argumento cognosceret 

8 John v. 35. 

4 Compare Ps. xi. 7; xvii. 31; cxviii. 140; Prov. xxx. 5. 



3 o6 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

arrival at Enimaus Jesus acted as though He intended to go 
farther, He was not pretending, but deliberately testing the two 
disciples. He remained because they stood the test; had they 
not done so, He would have passed on. St. Augustine assigns 
an allegorical interpretation to this episode, and says that Jesus 
desired to indicate symbolically the truth quod longius postea 
per ascensionem super omnes caelos iturus esset, nec tamen dis- 
cipulos deserturus . 1 The disciples showed that they had stood 
the test, for they eagerly besought Jesus to tarry with them. 
According to St. Gregory, 2 they set Christians an example of 
hospitality toward strangers. The words “ Stay with us ” seem 
to suggest that these two disciples lived at Emmaus. 

The supper at Emmaus. Soon after they arrived they sat 
down to their evening meal, and during that meal they recog¬ 
nized their Master. From what happened later in the evening 
we may infer that they sat down to table at about six o’clock. 
Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, and 
then they knew Him. There are several reasons for thinking 
that we ought to understand St. Luke’s account as referring to 
the Holy Eucharist. Those who do not take this view say that 
the blessing was only the ordinary blessing or grace, pronounced 
by the head of a household before a meal, but this theory is 
hardly tenable, for such a blessing was pronounced before the 
meal began, whereas Christ blessed the bread and gave it to the 
disciples while the meal was in progress. Whenever we read in 
the gospels that Jesus blessed bread, we find that it was on some 
exceptional occasion, as when He fed the multitudes and at the 
Last Supper. In the Acts of the Apostles, 3 and in St. Paul’s 
epistles, 4 the celebration of Holy Communion is called the break¬ 
ing of bread, and the same expression occurs frequently in the 
Fathers, 5 perhaps because it is used 1 in the passage under con¬ 
sideration. The theory that our Lord celebrated the Holy 
Eucharist at Emmaus gains support from what St. Luke says 
of the effect of His action. As soon as He gave the bread that 


1 L. 2. quaest. in evang., Lib. contra mendac. 

* Horn. 23 in evang.: peregrinos non solum invitondos ad hospitium, sed 
etiam trahendos. 

3 ii. 42, 46; xx. 7, 11. 

4 1 Cor. x. 16. 

6 Compare Doctrina duodecim apostolorum, 14, 1: icari KvptaKrjv dk Kvplov 
cvvaxOtvTcs KXiaare &prov. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 307 

He had blessed and broken to the disciples, their eyes were 
opened and they knew Him. Estius, and more recently Knaben- 
bauer, argue that, not being apostles, the two disciples can have 
known nothing about the Holy Eucharist, and therefore could 
not have understood the significance of the breaking of bread 
at Emmaus; but this argument has not much weight, since all 
the disciples in Jerusalem must soon have heard of what took 
place in the cenaculum. Hence the great majority of commen¬ 
tators, both ancient and modem, believe that St. Luke is speak¬ 
ing of the Eucharist. St. Jerome 1 says that our Lord, by 
celebrating the Eucharistic banquet at the house of Cleophas in 
Emmaus (which he identifies with Nicopolis), consecrated that 
dwelling as a church. This theory is rejected by the following 
Catholic commentators: Lyranus, Cajetan, Estius, Jansenius, 
senior (not, however, Jansenius, junior), 2 Lamy, Schegg, 
Schanz, and Knabenbauer. 

As soon as our Saviour was recognized by the two disciples, 
He vanished out of their sight. After His resurrection He ap¬ 
peared and vanished suddenly because His glorified body pos¬ 
sessed agility ( agilitas ), in virtue of which it could pass easily 
and rapidly, like a spirit, from place to place. The sudden dis¬ 
appearance was intended to teach the disciples redivivi corporis 
alias esse qualitates; quod substantia quidem esset verum corpus , 
agilitate et subtilitate spirituale . 3 Immediately they set out on 
their way back to Jerusalem, for they were anxious to tell the 
apostles assembled there that Jesus was indeed risen and had 
appeared to them. They probably reached the holy city about 
9 p.m., for we can gather from St. Luke’s account that they went 
as quickly as possible, being eager to convey the news without 
delay. 4 


1 De locis Hebr. and Epist. 27. 

a Jansenius (junior) paraphrases the passage thus: benedixit, ea benedic- 
tione, de qua sermo est apud evangelistas in institution Eucharistiae. 

3 Jansenius, ad loc. 

4 Baron. Ann. ad a. 34, n. 195. 



3°8 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


IX. Christ Appears to the Apostles in the Absence 
of Thomas 


Luke xxiv. 36-43 

36. Now whilst they were speak¬ 
ing these things, Jesus stood in the 
midst of them, and saith to them: 
Peace be to you; it is I, fear not. 

37. But they being troubled and 
frighted, supposed that they saw a 
spirit 

38. And he said to them: Why 
are you troubled, and why do 
thoughts arise in your hearts? 

39. See my hands and feet, that 
it is I myself; handle, and see: for 
a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as 
you see me to have. 

40. And when he had said this, he 
shewed them his hands and feet. 

41. But while they yet believed 
not, and wondered for joy, he said: 
Have you here anything to eat? 

42. And they offered him a piece 
of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. 

43. And when he had eaten be¬ 
fore them, taking the remains, he 
gave to them. 


John xx. 19-23 

19. Now when it was late that 
same day, the first of the week, and 
the doors were shut, where the dis¬ 
ciples were gathered together for 
fear of the Jews, Jesus came and 
stood in the midst, and said to them : 
Peace be to you. 

20. And when he had said this, he 
shewed them his hands and his side. 
The disciples therefore were glad, 
when they saw the Lord. 

21. He said therefore to them 
again: Peace be to you. As the 
Father hath sent me, I also send you. 

22. When he had said this, he 
breathed on them; and he said to 
them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 

23. Whose sins you shall forgive, 
they are forgiven them; and whose 
sins you shall retain, they are 
retained. 


The day of this appearance is stated by St. John with preci¬ 
sion, but the hour somewhat vaguely. It is clear, however, 
from the sequence of events that the word “ late ” can refer only 
to what was called the second evening, i.e., the time after sun¬ 
set. We are told that it was “towards evening” 1 when our 
Lord went into the house at Emmaus, and after leaving there 
the two disciples had a three hours’ walk 2 back to Jerusalem, 
and consequently, however much they may have hurried, it is 
hardly possible for the event recorded in this section to have 
occurred earlier than 9 p.m. According to St. Luke Jesus ap¬ 
peared to the apostles and some disciples who were with them; 3 
probably they had assembled in the cenaculum on Mount Sion. 
This was the fifth and last time that Jesus appeared on the day 
of His resurrection, although there is an incidental reference 
to His having been seen by St. Peter on that day. 4 St. Luke 


1 Luke xxiv. 29. 

3 Luke xxiv. 33, 36. 


Luke xxiv. 13. 
Luke xxiv. 34. 





RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 309 

tells us that He appeared suddenly in the midst of the disciples, 
and St. John adds the additional detail that the doors were 
shut. 

In discussing how our Lord could pass through closed doors it is usual 
to refer to His omnipotence as Son of God, and to compare His action on 
this occasion with His proceeding from His mother’s womb without preju¬ 
dice to her virginity, and also to His miraculous walking on the sea. But 
it was due to a special faculty ( subtilitas ) of His glorified body that Christ 
was able to enter the room although the doors were shut, since a body that 
has risen in glory possesses the faculty of passing freely from place to 
place unhindered by the resistance of solid bodies. 1 

The accounts given by the two evangelists of this appearance 
of our Lord to His disciples supplement each other. St. Luke 
records the incident which convinced them that He whom they 
beheld was indeed their risen Master; St. John, on the other 
hand, while alluding only briefly to this event, gives in minute 
detail the words in which Christ bestowed upon His disciples 
the power to forgive sins. 

When the Prince of Peace appeared, He greeted His fol¬ 
lowers with the familiar Jewish phrase, “ Peace be unto you.” 
He wished them that inward peace which proceeds from the 
Arm belief in His resurrection. The full meaning of this greet¬ 
ing was revealed later. Once before He had said to them, “ It 
is I, be not afraid,” 2 and although He now repeated the same 
words in His familiar voice the disciples were troubled and 
frightened, thinking that they saw a spirit who had assumed 
an outward form resembling that of their Master. Various 
circumstances contributed to cause this fear and produce this 
false impression: they still failed to believe firmly in the resur¬ 
rection of Jesus; and He had taken them by surprise when the 
doors were shut, and there happened nothing to announce His 
coming; moreover, they were amazed at the qualities of His 
glorified body. 

The task assigned to the apostles was to come forward and 
bear testimony as eyewitnesses to the fundamental truth of 
Christ’s resurrection. 3 Hence during His forty days’ sojourn 
on earth our risen Lord aimed particularly at impressing this 

1 Tir.: privilegium hoc est corporum gloriosorum, ut ttec pondere pre- 

mantur, nec mole praepediantur. 

3 John vi. 20. 

3 Compare Acts i. 21, 22; 1 Cor. xv. 1 seqq . 



3 io THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

fact upon His followers, and at convincing them of the real 
and essential identity between His former body and that in 
which He now appeared. His behavior on the occasion of this 
His first appearance to the apostles was that of a wise Teacher, 
for He suggested to His disciples all the reasons which might 
serve to convince them that He had really risen with a truly 
human body. In order to prepare them for this instruction. 
He soothed them by telling them that their fears were ground¬ 
less and their doubts unjustifiable, because they were at variance 
with the truth. The words, “ Why do thoughts arise in your 
heart ?” must certainly refer to doubts entertained by the dis¬ 
ciples as to the identity and reality of Christ’s body. St. Augus¬ 
tine lays stress on the verb ascendere, and gives the question a 
mystical interpretation, saying that earthly thoughts arise, 
whereas heavenly thoughts descendunt in cor . 1 

In order to remove all doubts, our Saviour invited the disci¬ 
ples to examine and touch His hands, feet, and side, and ex¬ 
plained this suggestion by saying, “ a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones as you see me to have.” The disciples were to convince 
themselves that He who stood before them was in very truth 
the Messiah who had died upon the cross, and that He had really 
risen with a human body that could be touched. 2 This passage 
shows us that the subtilitas of a risen body does not prevent it 
from being perceptible to the senses and from being touched. 
It resembles but it is not a spirit. Moreover, we learn that our 
Lord’s glorious body still bears the marks of His wound-marks 
as a visible token of the price paid by Him for the redemption 
of mankind, and of His triumph over Satan. The evangelists 
do not actually tell us that the disciples touched their Lord’s 
scars, but in his first epistle (I, i) St. John says plainly that he 
did so. 3 The disciples’ joy at receiving this sensible assurance 
was so great that they were seized with bewilderment, but still 
did not believe that He whom they had touched was indeed their 
risen Saviour. St. Luke says explicitly that they “ believed not 
and wondered for joy,” and commentators refer to similar 
effects of joy recorded in the Old and New Testaments. Jacob 


1 Sermo i45, de tempore. 

2 Jansenius: argumentum praebet venae resurrectionis in vero corpore 
human o. 

8 Compare Augustinus, In Ps. 147, and Lib. de unitate eccl., c. 10. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 311 

refused to believe the good news that his son Joseph was alive, 1 
and the faithful assembled in the house of Mary, John Mark’s 
mother, would not believe that it was Peter when he knocked 
at the door after his deliverance from prison. 2 There is a 
psychological explanation for this sort of incredulity. The ex¬ 
cessive joy felt on seeing one who has been the object of intense 
desire is an impediment to firm belief in the attainment of that 
desire, 3 and in many cases fear of eventual disappointment acts 
as a deterrent. The disciples’ hesitation, their doubt whether 
they could really believe in Christ’s resurrection, was permitted 
by God for our good, since we see that they were not credulous, 
and only gradually arrived at the full faith in the resurrection 
after receiving unquestionable evidence that it had actually 
occurred. 4 

Our Lord gave His followers a further proof of the reality 
of His resurrection by partaking of their food. We are bound 
to believe that He really ate, and have to consider how eating 
is conceivable in the case of our Saviour after He had risen in 
glory. Keil thinks that it was a miracle, similar to that which 
took place when the angels ate with Abraham and Lot. St. 
Augustine, however, remarks: quod manducavit potestatis fuit, 
non egestatis. 5 

It is scarcely possible to deny that celestial beings may partake 
of food, although the reality of such eating is questionable. In 
the present instance Jesus made an exception in order to con¬ 
firm His disciples’ faith in His resurrection. Then at last their 
doubts vanished, and, as St. John says, “ they were glad.” 

Bestowal of the power to forgive sin. The apostles were then 
in the right disposition for receiving the power to forgive sin. 
This all-important episode in the scheme for our salvation was 
introduced by the words, “ Peace be unto you.” Our Saviour had 
uttered this greeting when entering the room; as Prince of 
Peace He repeated it after a short interval, because instituturus 
erat sacramentum pads. A Christian possesses the blessing of 


1 Gen. lv. 26. 

3 Acts xii. 12 seqq. 

3 Aug. ad Ps. cxlvii: quae multum laeta sunt, vix creduntur. 

4 Leo, Sermo I. de ascensione Domini: Deum ideo hasce credendi haesi- 
tationes ac dubitationes in apostolis permisisse, ne dubitaretur a nobis, ut 
tot videlicet ostensionibus roboremur in fide. 

* Sermo 147, de tempore. 



312 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Messianic peace only when he is free from sin and in the state 
of divine grace. It is therefore very significant that our 
Saviour greeted His apostles thus at the moment when He was 
about to confer upon them authority to forgive sins, and so 
render them peacemakers among men. Our Lord’s action sug¬ 
gests that every priest who possesses this authority should keep 
his own heart free from sin, and filled with, and uplifted by, the 
peace of God. On two occasions had our Saviour promised to 
confer the power of forgiveness: first to St. Peter alone, 1 and 
afterwards to all the apostles; 2 and now, in the mysterious 
period following His resurrection, He made good His promise. 
On the very day when He rose from the dead, at about 9 p.m.. 
He conferred upon the apostles the power to forgive sins, and 
thus He became also in the person of His representatives the 
Prince of Peace foretold by Isaias. 3 In all probability the scene 
of this event was the cenaculum on Mount Sion. 

“ As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” Our Lord 
here referred to the apostles’ special mission to forgive sins, and 
not to their more general task of carrying out His Messianic 
work in its entirety. This more general task, that comprised 
the whole scope of their activity, was assigned to the apostles 
later on in Galilee. Christ was sent by God the Father, that, in 
accordance with the divine scheme of salvation, He might “ heal 
the contrite of heart,” “ preach deliverance to the captives, and 
sight to the blind,” and “set at liberty them that are bruised.” 4 
He accomplished His mission when He brought the human race, 
which had languished in bondage to sin, into the liberty of the 
children of God; He effected this by means of conferring upon 
the apostles the power to forgive sin, — a power which belonged 
essentially to Himself as Son of God. Before leaving this 
world, He commissioned them to act as His representatives on 
earth, and, by imparting to them the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon 
them authority to forgive. 

He breathed on them and said, “ Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” 
This does not refer to the promise that the Holy Ghost would 
come, but His actual communication took place when these 
words were uttered. The act of breathing upon the apostles 
was in itself full of symbolical meaning, but in conjunction 


1 Matthew xvi. 19. 
8 ix. 6. 


2 Matthew xviii. 18. 
4 Luke iv. 18, 19. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 313 

with the utterance of these words it became the means of 
communicating the Holy Ghost to them. Many of the early 
commentators discuss our Lord’s reason for communicating the 
Holy Ghost to His apostles by means of the outward sign of 
breath. 1 He intended to furnish them thus with complete 
assurance that the Holy Ghost with all His gifts of grace 
had indeed been bestowed upon them, and at the same time 
He wished to teach them that He sent forth the Holy Spirit, 
and indicated that the Holy Spirit proceeds at once from 
the Father and the Son. The Fathers and early commen¬ 
tators suggest that our Lord’s breathing upon the apostles 
is parallel to God’s breathing the breath of life into the first 
man, and, just as this breath imparted to Adam the grace 
of likeness to God, as well as physical life, so did Christ’s 
breathing upon the apostles indicate that He had power to re¬ 
store the grace of spiritual life after it had been lost, and that 
He appointed his apostles to be the ministers of this grace to 
others. Thus the words, “ Receive ye the Holy Ghost ” must be 
understood as referring to a real, immediate bestowal of the 
Holy Ghost, with all His gifts, whereby the power to forgive 
sin was conferred upon the apostles. The relation between this 
bestowal of the Holy Ghost and that which took place at Pente¬ 
cost has been frequently discussed. St. Jerome deals with it in 
the ninth Quaestio of his Epistola ad Hedibiam. Some think 
that the bestowal of the Holy Ghost began on Easter Sunday 
and was completed in all its fullness at Pentecost; it is, however, 
more accurate to say that at Pentecost the Holy Ghost, being 
the fruit of Christ’s work of redemption, was bestowed upon 
the whole Church, as the principle destined to effect the purifica¬ 
tion and sanctification of the human race. The apostles were 
already pure and holy during our Lord’s earthly life, 2 and so 
before His ascension He equipped them with apostolic authority 
and the gifts necessary to its exercise. At Pentecost they re¬ 
ceived the Holy Ghost in order that, by means of His gift of 
understanding, they might fully comprehend the work accom¬ 
plished by Christ, and by means of His gifts of fortitude and 
counsel they might become the true representatives of Christ. 
Moreover, at Pentecost they received the gift of tongues. 3 


1 Compare Sylveira, ix. 4, 13. 2 John xiii. io. 

3 St. Jerome remarks: hujus qmestionis perfacilis solutio est, si docente 



314 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


The authority conferred by our Lord upon the apostles was 
given in the words: “ Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are for¬ 
given them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained.” 
Christ declared quite definitely that the apostles possessed real 
power to forgive sins, in virtue of having received the Holy 
Ghost. The expression that He employed precludes all possi¬ 
bility of doubt on this subject, since He used the same verb that 
He had used in speaking of the remission of sins by God the 
Father, * 1 and in explaining that He Himself, as Son of man, had 
the divine power to forgive sins. 2 As the apostles did not pos¬ 
sess the gift of reading men’s hearts, it follows that if they were 
to exercise their power to forgive or retain sins they must be 
put in a position to exercise with justice their judicial functions, 
and this can be done only through a confession of sins on the 
part of the faithful. Thus our Lord’s words must apply to 
the remission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance, and not to 
the removal of sin by the administration of Baptism. The 
power of forgiveness was not, however, conferred upon the 
apostles personally, but was given them as the representatives 
of Christ, for the welfare of the faithful. Therefore it abides 
permanently in His Church. That this must be so is obvious, 
for there will ever be present the need which in the first instance 
caused our Lord to confer this power upon His apostles. And 
since the apostolic power to forgive sins was conferred by a 
special act of consecration, it can be transmitted only by way 
of ordination, from one of Christ’s representatives to another. 


X. Christ Appears to the Apostles when Thomas 
is Present 


John xx. 24-25 


24. Now Thomas, one of the 
twelve, who is called Didymus, was 
not with them when Jesus came. 

25. The other disciples therefore 
said to him: We have seen the 


Lord. But he said to them: Except 
I shall see in his hands the prints of 
the nails, and put my finger into the 
place of the nails, and put my hand 
into his side, I will not believe. 


apostolo Paulo Spiritus sancti diversas gratias noverimus. . . . Prima igitur 
die resurrectionis acceperunt Spiritus sancti gratiam, qua peccata dimitte- 
rent et baptizarent et filios Dei facerent. . . . Die autem Pentecostes eis am - 
plius repromissum est, ut baptizarentur Spiritu sancto et induerentur virtute 
ex alto, qua Christi evangelium cunciis gentibus praedicarent. 

1 Matthew vi. 12, 14. 2 Matthew ix. 2, 5, 6. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 315 


John xx. 26-29 


26. And after eight days, again 
his disciples were within, and 
Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, 
the doors being shut, and stood in 
the midst, and said: Peace be to 
you. 

27. Then he saith to Thomas: 
Put in thy finger hither, and see my 
hands, and bring hither thy hand and 


put it into my side; and be not faith¬ 
less, but believing. 

28. Thomas answered, and said 
to him: My Lord, and my God. 

29. Jesus saith to him: Because 
thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou 
hast believed: blessed are they that 
have not seen, and have believed. 


St. John alone records this second apparition of our Lord to 
the apostles; there can be no doubt that, like the first, it occurred 
in Jerusalem, probably in the cenaculum on Mount Sion. 1 The 
evangelist tells us the precise time, viz., eight days after the first 
appearance on Easter Sunday. The prominent feature on the 
second occasion was that Thomas, who refused to believe the 
testimony of the other apostles, became now most thoroughly 
convinced of the truth of the Resurrection, and bore most solemn 
witness to the fact that He who had risen from the dead was 
indeed the Messiah and God. 

St. John says, at the beginning of his account, that Thomas 
had been absent when Jesus came to the apostles for the first 
time. The name Thomas means “ twin,” and according to tradi¬ 
tion this apostle had a twin sister named Lydia. St. John had 
already mentioned Thomas as a courageous follower of Jesus, 
ready to face death in his loyalty and devotion to his Master, 
but still unable to cast aside the erroneous ideas regarding the 
Messiah current among the Jews. 2 The latter fact is important, 
since it explains the apostle's behavior when he heard the news 
of Christ's resurrection. Many commentators have assumed 
that on Easter Sunday Thomas had not yet rejoined his fellow 
apostles after their band had been dispersed on the night of our 
Lord's Passion. The assumption is, however, untenable. St. 
Luke seems to intimate 3 that Thomas was with the rest on the 
morning of Easter Sunday, when the women returned from the 
sepulchre; and the same evangelist states explicitly that the 
two disciples from Emmaus told the eleven what they had seen. 
It is true that the term “the twelve” is used to designate the 

1 Compare John xx. 26. The opinion of St. Jerome (In Matth. xxviii. 
10) and of others who think that it took place in Galilee cannot be accepted. 

2 Compare John xi. 16; xiv. 5. 

3 xxiv. 10, 11. 




3 i6 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

apostolic band without reference to the actual number of its 
members, but this is not the case with “ the eleven.” We must 
therefore follow St. Augustine 1 and other commentators 2 who 
believe that Thomas was present in the cenaculum when the two 
disciples arrived from Emmaus, but that he had gone away be¬ 
fore Jesus appeared. Lamy and others think that there is no 
reason to be discovered for his departure, but Cornelius a Lapide 
suggests what may be the truth, viz., that Thomas withdrew 
because in his opinion the other apostles were too ready to listen 
to reports of their Lord’s resurrection. 3 

The ten who were willing to believe were rewarded, for they 
beheld their risen Lord, and when Thomas returned they eagerly 
told him the news. In accordance with his usual custom the 
evangelist records only the chief point; there can be no doubt, 
as Thomas’s behavior shows, that the apostles gave him all the 
details of our Lord’s appearance, and did not merely say, “ We 
have seen the Lord.” In reply Thomas explained that he would 
not believe in the Resurrection until he had seen and touched 
the wounds in his Master’s hands, feet, and side. He declared 
that nothing would convince him of the truth of the Resurrection 
except the evidence of his own senses. The context shows that 
the words “ I will not believe ” are a direct denial of the Resur¬ 
rection. 4 Some commentators try to soften down the statement. 
St. Cyril regards it as being chiefly an expression of regret on 
the part of Thomas, because he had been absent when Jesus 
appeared. St. John Chrysostom thinks that he denied the truth 
of the apostles’ words, not the fact of the Resurrection. St. Am¬ 
brose and St. Augustine 5 6 maintain that he did not question the 
resurrection, but desired further information regarding the way 
in which it had taken place. None of these explanations seem 
borne out by the words of the evangelist, and they are plainly 
intended to present Thomas’s behavior in a more favorable 
light. Cornelius a Lapide says that Thomas deserved blame for 
several reasons. 

Various circumstances, however, suggest excuses for him. 


1 De cons, evang. 3, 76. 

3 Bede, Lyranus, Corn, a Lap., Toletus, and Jansenius. 

8 Corn, a Lap. ad. Jo. xx. 24. 

4 Corn, a Lap.: fuit increduliis circa ipsius resurrectionis Christi verito- 

tem. 

6 Compare Corn, a Lap. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 317 

He still clung tenaciously to the Jews' mistaken ideas of the 
Messiah, and consequently our Lord's Passion was unexpected 
and incomprehensble to him, and caused him to lose all hope, and 
his despondency was the deeper because he had expected so much. 
The obstinacy revealed by his words was due, partly, to his an¬ 
noyance at finding that his previous sceptical attitude seemed 
to be controverted by the course of events. Everything turned 
upon a fundamental fact to which Thomas, as one of Christ's 
apostles, was forecast to bear witness, and therefore he was to 
demand the strongest possible guarantee for the truth of the 
Resurrection. The Fathers and earlier commentators almost 
without exception represent Thomas's behavior as permitted by 
God for the express purpose of strengthening our faith. 1 

Eight days after our Lord's first apparition, the apostles were 
again gathered together and this time Thomas was present. It 
was the octave day of the Resurrection, the day we call Low 
Sunday. According to St. Cyril we may believe that our Lord 
by sanctifying the first day of the week by appearing on it, and 
by coming again on the first day of the following week, indi¬ 
cated that the faithful should observe that day by assembling for 
religious worship. 

There is abundant evidence in the New Testament to show that even in 
apostolic times the Christians observed the first day of the week instead of 
the Jewish Sabbath, which, being only a foreshadowing of what was to 
come, ceased to be observed when Christ's work of redemption was ac¬ 
complished. 2 * St. Paul rebuked the Christians in Galatia for still observing 
the Sabbath, 8 and told the Corinthians 4 that on the first day in the week a 
collection should be made for the poor in Jerusalem, thus showing plainly 
that he regarded that day as important in the eyes of Christians. It was on 
the first day of the week that the disciples at Troas assembled to break 
bread. 5 In the Apocalypse 6 we read of “the Lord’s day,” which must cer¬ 
tainly be identified with our Sunday, the first day of the week, that we ob ¬ 
serve in memory of Christ’s resurrection. In very early writers we find t he 


1 St. Gregory the Great writes very beautifully (Horn. 26 in evang.) : 
non hoc casu, sed divina dispensatione gestum est. Egit namque miro modo 
superna dementia, ut discipulus ille dubitans, dum in magistro suo vulnera 
palparet carnis, in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis . Plus enim nobis 
Thomae infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides credentium discipulorum profuit; 
quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur, nostra mens omni dubitatione 
postposita in fide solidatur. 

2 Col. ii. 16, 17. 

8 Gal. iv. 10. 

4 1 Cor. xvi. 2. 

6 Acts xx. 7. 

8 i. 10. 



3 i8 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

expressions dies Domini, dies Dominica used of festivals of the Church. 
The words occur in St. Ignatius, 1 Dionysius of Corinth,* Tertullian, 8 and 
others. Pliny the younger, 4 in speaking of Christians, says: stato die ante 
lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere; he is undoubtedly re¬ 
ferring to religious assemblies on the first day of the week. The earliest 
allusion to Sunday in the Fathers occurs in the Epistle of Barnabas, who 
says that the Christians in his time observed the eighth day, on which Christ 
rose from the dead, with gladness and joy. 5 

On the occasion when Thomas was present, our Lord ap¬ 
peared to the apostles in the same way as before and greeted 
them with the same words. In His mercy He revealed Himself 
to Thomas as both omniscient and gracious. Addressing him, 
as He had addressed the other apostles on the previous Sunday, 
He invited him to examine the scars of the wounds, and added 
as a gentle reproof, “ be not faithless but believing/’ i.e., “ believe 
that I have really risen from the dead.” Some commentators 
think that the Greek ^ yivov amcrros should be rendered “ be¬ 
come not faithless,” and take it to mean that Thomas, having 
denied the resurrection of Christ, was in great danger of losing 
his faith altogether, and for this reason Jesus warned him of his 
peril. That the danger existed was of course a fact, but the 
context here shows that our Lord was appealing to Thomas no 
longer to doubt, but firmly to believe in His resurrection. The 
evangelist does not tell us whether Thomas actually touched the 
marks of the wounds; St. Augustine 6 and the majority of com¬ 
mentators think that he did so. From the words, “ bring hither 
thy hand and put it into my side,” some exegetes infer that the 
wound was large enough for a man’s hand to be thrust into it; 7 
the expression may, however, be merely an invitation to touch 
and feel the wound. 

When Thomas had seen, and in all probability had also 
touched, the sacred wounds, he was overpowered with the im¬ 
pression produced by them and enlightened by divine grace, so 
that he made a solemn profession of faith and exclaimed, “ My 

1 Ep. ad Magn., c. 9: ca ^^ ari ^ ovres ^ dXX a /ca-rd KvpiaK^v (sc. Ijfiepav ) 

fwprcj. 

2 Ap. Euseb. H. E. 4, 31. 

8 De corona milit. c. 3; De Jejun. c. 15. 

4 Ep. x. 97. 

6 Ep. Barnab. C. 15, 9: ral &<yo/lev ryu iifiepav r^v iyto-qv els et<ppoc 6 vT]v 

iv % Kal 6 ’ Irjaovs avicTT) iic verpCiv. 

8 Tract. 121 in Joann. 

7 Jansenius: hinc colligitur, tantae latitudinis fuisse vulnus. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 319 

Lord and my God.” Cornelius a Lapide follows St. Hilary and 
St. Ambrose, and sums up the meaning of Thomas’s exclama¬ 
tion thus: voce Dominus confitetur humanam Christi naturam, 
voce Deus divinam. He bore testimony to Christ as both God 
and Man. 

A few scholars reject the above explanation of this passage. Theodorus 
of Mopsuestia, who is followed by the Socinians and others, maintains that 
Thomas’s words are not a profession of faith in the Person of Christ, but 
are merely an ejaculation expressing praise to God the Father, and were 
elicited by the powerful impression which the whole episode had produced 
on the apostle. This theory falls to the ground when we remember that 
Christ Himself regarded the words as a profession of faith. There can be 
no doubt that they were addressed to Jesus, for the evangelist states ex¬ 
plicitly that Thomas “ answered and said to Him.” Moreover, the disciples 
never used the expression “ My Lord ” to designate any but Christ, and 
therefore the following words “ and my God ” must also apply to Him. 
None of the attempts made to weaken Thomas’s profession of faith are in 
harmony with either the language or the teaching of the gospel. In the 
Greek, the article prefixed to the name of God makes the meaning perfectly 
clear. It is quite in keeping with the whole tenor of his gospel that St. John 
aims at showing, by means of Thomas’s testimony, how our Lord revealed 
Himself, and led His disciples to recognize the truth proclaimed at the be¬ 
ginning of the fourth gospel. If we give the name “God” as used by 
Thomas, its proper meaning, we shall see the natural connection between 
this episode and the words with which the evangelist concludes his account 
of it: “These [things] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” 1 

Our Lord expresses His approval of Thomas’s profession of 
faith by saying, “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast be¬ 
lieved.” Those who maintain that Thomas only looked at and 
did not touch the scars in His hands and feet, base their theory 
upon these words, but it is quite clear that the verb “ to see ” 
may here include all perception through the senses. 2 What 
Thomas believed was not alone the fact of the Resurrection, but 
that Jesus, whom the apostle beheld with his bodily eyes, was 
indeed Lord and God. St. Augustine says very beautifully: 3 
videbat tangebatque hominem et confitebatur Deurn, quem non 
videbat neque tangebat; sed per hoc, quod videbat atque tange- 
bat, illud jam remota dubitatione credebat. 

Our Lord’s concluding words, “ Blessed are they that have 
not seen and [yet] have believed,” contain not only a gentle 

1 John xx. 31. 

9 Aug. Tract. 121 in Joann.: non ait, tetigisti me, sed, vidisti me, quoniam 
generalis quodammodo sensus est visus . 

8 loc. cit. 



320 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

reproof to Thomas, but also encouragement for those who have 
not the happiness of seeing their Redeemer face to face. St. 
Augustine writes: quod sequitur (sc. beati qui non viderunt et 
crediderunt), magis gentium fidem praedicat atque commendat. 
Thomas is not excluded; he, too, was blessed, since to him apply 
the words uttered on a previous occasion, “ Blessed are the eyes 
that see the things which you see ,” 1 2 3 4 5 6 but the happiness of those 
who believe without seeing is /the greater because their faith is 
more meritorious. 

In conclusion we must allude briefly to the following questions: As 
Thomas was absent when his fellow apostles received power to forgive sins, 
did he not receive it at all? and, if he did receive it, when was it conferred 
upon him? Jansenius refers to the story of Eldad and Medad, in Num. xi. 
26, etc., and thinks that, through the action of the Holy Ghost, Thomas re¬ 
ceived the power at the same time as the other apostles, because he belonged 
to the number of those upon whom Jesus bestowed that power in the first 
instance. Other commentators suppose that it was conferred upon him 
later. 


XI. Christ Appears to Several Apostles near the 
Lake of Tiberias 

John xxi. 1-11 


1. After this Jesus shewed himself 
again to the disciples at the sea of 
Tiberias. And he shewed himself 
after this manner.* 

2. There were together Simon 
Peter, and Thomas who is called 
Didymus, and Nathanael who was 
of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of 
Zebedee, and two others of his dis¬ 
ciples. 

3. Simon Peter saith to them: I 
go a fishing. They say to him: We 
also come with thee. And they went 
forth, and entered into the ship: and 
that night they caught nothing. 

4. But when the morning was 
come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet 
the disciples knew not that it was 
Jesus. 

5. Jesus therefore said to them: 
Children, have you any meat? They 
answered him: No. 

6. He saith to them: Cast the net 


on the right side of the ship: and 
you shall find. They cast therefore : 
and now they were not able to draw 
it for the multitude of fishes. 

7. That disciple therefore whom 
Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is the 
Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard 
that it was the Lord, girt his coat 
about him (for he was naked) and 
cast himself into the sea. 

8. But the other disciples came in 
the ship (for they were not far from 
the land; but as it were two hundred 
cubits) dragging the net with fishes. 

9. As soon then as they came to 
land, they saw hot coals lying, and a 
fish laid thereon, and bread. 

10. Jesus saith to them: Bring 
hither of the fishes which you have 
now caught. 

11. Simon Peter went up, and 
drew the net to land, full of great 
fishes, one hundred and fifty three. 


Luke x. 23. 





RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 321 


John xxi. 12-14 


And although there were so many, 
the net was not broken. 

12. Jesus saith to them: Come, 
and dine. And none of them who 
were at meat, durst ask him: Who 
art thou? knowing that it was the 
Lord. 


13. And Jesus cometh and taketh 
bread, and giveth them, and fish in 
like manner. 

14. This is now the third time 
that Jesus was manifested to his 
disciples, after he was risen from 
the dead. 


The events recorded in this section occurred in Galilee, on the 
western shore of the Lake of Tiberias. 


This lake is about 650 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. It is 
160 feet deep, and its length at the present time is about 18 or 20 miles; its 
greatest width is 7 or 8 miles. Josephus gives an eloquent description of 
the beauty and fertility of the country around it, 1 which is still one of the 
most fertile districts in Palestine. 2 In Holy Scripture the lake is known 
by various names; in the Old Testament it is called Kinnereth or Kinnaroth, 
either after a town of similar name® that was situated on the lake, or be¬ 
cause in shape it resembled a lute (Kinnor). In the New Testament it is 
called the Sea or Lake of Tiberias, after the town of Tiberias, built by 
Herod Antipas on the southwest shore, and named by him after the Em¬ 
peror Tiberius. It was also known as the Sea of Galilee or Lake of Ge- 
nesareth, * 4 the latter name being that of the district lying to the west of the 
lake. 


To this region, which had been privileged to be the scene of 
our Lord’s public ministry, did the apostles withdraw, as they 
had been commanded, 5 but they had remained at Jerusalem until 
the octave day of the Resurrection, 6 and probably started north¬ 
ward immediately after that day. St. John gives no precise 
indication of place, and merely says that Jesus showed Himself 
to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. It is probable that this 
meeting occurred on the northwest shore of the lake, near Beth- 
saida of Galilee or Caphamaum. We cannot determine the 
length of the interval between the second and third occasions 
on which our Lord appeared to the apostles; but at least a week 
must have elapsed since they had seen Him on Low Sunday. 

On this third occasion Jesus appeared to seven disciples, of 
whom five were undoubtedly apostles, and the others possibly. 
St. John gives a list of them, and mentions a certain Nathanael 
of Cana in Galilee, between Peter and Thomas on the one hand, 
and the sons of Zebedee on the other. The same evangelist 


2 Socin. 266. 

4 Matthew iv. 18; Luke v. 1. 
8 John xx. 26. 


1 B. J. in. 10, 8. 

8 Josue xix. 35. 

5 Matthew xxvi. 32; xxviii. 7, 10. 





322 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


alone speaks of a disciple named Nathanael, who seems to have 
been one of St. John the Baptist’s followers, and was brought 
by Philip to Christ, when He was teaching near the Jordan. 
The synoptic writers do not mention Nathanael, but the posi¬ 
tion of his name here shows that he must have ranked among 
the apostles. If this be correct, we may identify him with the 
apostle whom the synoptic evangelists call Bartholomew, whose 
name occurs in all the lists of the apostles next to that of Philip. 
Philip introduced Nathanael to our Lord, and the name Barthol¬ 
omew is a patronymic, meaning son of Tholmai, so that the 
apostle’s full name was Nathanael, son of Tholmai. 1 According 
to Eusebius 2 he went to preach the faith in India (Yemen), 
carrying with him St. Matthew’s gospel in the original Hebrew. 

Besides the five apostles named we hear of two other disciples 
whose names are not mentioned; commentators are divided as 
to whether or not they belonged to the apostolic band; Schegg 
suggests that they may have been the apostles Andrew and 
Philip. 

St. John introduces his account of Christ’s third appearance 
with the words, “ He showed Himself after this manner,” viz., 
in the way and under the circumstances about to be described. 
This introduction indicates that the evangelist regarded the at¬ 
tendant circumstances as of the utmost importance, and desired 
to represent them in that light to others. In compliance with 
St. Peter’s suggestion, the seven disciples went out fishing, and 
although they toiled all night, they caught nothing. It may 
seem surprising that after their Master’s resurrection they still 
engaged in fishing, for Simon Peter had said to our Lord, “ Be¬ 
hold, we have left all things and have followed thee.” 3 This 
difficulty has been thoroughly discussed by the Fathers, espe¬ 
cially by St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great, 4 who think 
that the apostles returned for a time to their former occupation 
in order to earn a living. They had never been forbidden to 
engage in their ordinary work while preaching the gospel, pro¬ 
vided that they could do so without prejudice to their apostolic 
activity (apostolatus integritate servata, St. Augustine); more- 


1 John i. 45; compare Estius ad Joann, xxi. 2. 

3 H. E. 5, 13. * Matthew xix. 27. 

4 August. Tract. 122 in Joann.; Gregor. Horn. 24 in evang.; compare 
Breviar. fer. iv, pasch. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 323 

over they had no other means of providing themselves with the 
necessaries of life. We know that St. Paul supported himself 
by his labor. 

Early in the morning Jesus appeared on the shore of the lake 
and was not recognized by His disciples. Many reasons have 
been suggested for their failure to recognize Him. Some think 
that they were still over a hundred yards from the shore when 
He appeared, and could not see Him clearly owing to the dis¬ 
tance and the dim light of the dawn. Our Lord’s words, how¬ 
ever, seem to show that the disciples had probably reached the 
land before He suddenly appeared. In this case we must believe 
that they did not know Him, partly because of the change in His 
glorified body, and partly because He ordained that it should be 
so, since He desired to reveal Himself in the significant action 
that He was about to perform. 

In order to attract the disciples’ attention and to prepare them 
for what was to follow, Jesus asked them whether they had 
anything to eat. 1 Their curt and decided answer, “ No,” shows 
that they had no idea who was addressing them, but neverthe¬ 
less in obedience to His instructions they resumed their fishing, 
being confident of success. They were richly rewarded, for im¬ 
mediately they caught a great many large fish. John, the be¬ 
loved disciple, was the first to recognize Jesus, and said to Simon 
Peter, “ It is the Lord.” Menochius distinguishes accurately the 
subjective and objective reasons for this recognition, and says 
that John knew our Lord both ex multitudine piscium and ex 
celeritate capiendi. The apostle at once perceived the catch to 
be miraculous, and felt no doubt that He who had ordered them 
to cast out the net was the Lord. It does not seem correct to 
assume that John recognized Jesus because he looked at Him 
more intently, while Peter was busy with the net, and that Jesus 
in the meantime had laid aside His unfamiliar appearance. The 
Fathers and also some later commentators think that John’s 
perpetual virginity was the special reason why he possessed un¬ 
usual susceptibility for the things of heaven, and could penetrate 
so deeply into the mysteries of God’s design for man’s salva¬ 
tion. 2 John was the first to recognize his Master, but Peter, 

1 Jansenius: ut eorum attentionem in se dirigeret et congrue ad miracu- 
lutn delaberetur. 

2 Jerome, Epist. ad Pammachium: Prior virginitas virginale corpus ag- 



324 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

always impetuous, was the first to reach Him. Girding his upper 
garment about him, he plunged into the water and swam to the 
land. The others were not long after him, for they were only 
about a hundred yards from the shore. They had to drag the 
net full of fishes behind them through the water, since they 
were unable to lift it into the boat. 

The disciples, having already witnessed one miracle while on 
the lake, were destined to behold something very extraordinary 
when they reached the land. Although according to their own 
testimony there had been no food at hand, they now found a 
fire of hot coals and a fish laid thereon, and some bread. These 
things were miraculously provided, * 1 and were intended to con¬ 
vince the disciples that Jesus had caused them to catch the mul¬ 
titude of fish in order to remove all doubt as to His resurrection, 
and to reveal Him as the Giver of all good things, and, as such, 
independent of the help and co-operation of His followers. 
They were, however, to bring some of the fish that they had 
themselves caught and add them to the one that their Master 
had provided. Peter again came forward at the head of the 
disciples, drew the net, which was unbroken, to land, and 
counted the fish that it contained, — one hundred and fifty-three 
in all. Then our Lord turned to His disciples and invited them 
to come and eat. They probably took their places round the fire, 
and St. John, who was an eyewitness, implies that they were 
deeply impressed, for he tells us that none of them dared to ask 
who Jesus was, for they knew that it was the Lord. The evangel¬ 
ist’s words show plainly that the disciples would have liked to 
question Jesus, but dared not do so. The context does not bear 
out the interpretation that they deemed it unnecessary to ask 
Him anything. 2 On the contrary, they would gladly have ob¬ 
tained definite information by questioning Jesus. They knew 
that their Master had indeed risen from the dead and was stand¬ 
ing before them, but they desired to hear from Him how He had 
risen, how He could appear suddenly when the doors were shut, 
and again vanish from sight, and also why, when He appeared , 
He was not at once recognized by His disciples. They wish ed 


noscit. Lyranus says St. John was the first to recognize Jesus: nam puritas 
mentis et corporis maxime disponit hominem ad cognitionem divinorum. 

1 Opera angelorum; so Lyranus, Menochius, Jansenius, and others. 

2 Lamy. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 325 


to be informed, not regarding the identity, but regarding the 
qualities of His glorified body. So great were their awe and 
reverence that the disciples refrained from addressing any such 
questions to their risen Saviour. St. Augustine 1 thinks that the 
fact of our Lord’s resurrection was too evident for the disciples 
to venture to say, “Who art thou?” because such a question 
would imply want of faith in the reality of the Resurrection. 

The meal began, our Lord acting as host, as He did when 
He fed the multitude miraculously. He handed first the bread 
and then the fishes to the disciples. St. John does not tell us 
whether or not Jesus partook of the food, but it is probable that 
He did so. When St. Peter was speaking at Caesarea, in the 
house of Cornelius, he said that he and the other apostles, who 
were witnesses preordained by God, ate and drank with Christ 
after His resurrection. 2 The apostle seems to have been refer¬ 
ring to this occasion. St. John’s account concludes with the 
words that this was the third time that Jesus was manifested 
to His disciples after He was risen from the dead. The evan¬ 
gelist was plainly reckoning the times when our Lord appeared 
to a group of His followers: the first time on the evening of 
Easter Sunday, the second a week later on Low Sunday, and the 
third again about a week later in Galilee. 

St. Augustine begins his treatise on the miraculous draught of fishes* 
with the words: hoc est magnum sacramentum in magno Joannis evangelio, 
et ut vehementius commendaretur, loco ultimo scriptum. That the whole 
episode is symbolical is indicated, or rather explicitly stated, by our Lord 
Himself, and is not merely a fanciful suggestion on the part of the Fathers 
and subsequent commentators. The first call to the disciples was given 
when they were fishing in Galilee, 4 * and it was when they were engaged in 
the same occupation that the chief pastoral office was conferred upon St. 
Peter. The full significance of the action becomes apparent when these 
two facts are set in juxtaposition. Our Saviour Himself pointed out the 
connection between the catching of fish and the work of the apostles in the 
Church that He had founded, for He obviously referred to the miraculous 
draught of fishes when He said to Peter: “Fear not, from henceforth 
thou shalt catch men,” 8 and, when He was explaining the parable of the 
net cast into the sea,® He said: “ So shall it be at the end of the world. The 
angels shall go out and shall separate the wicked from among the just, and 
shall cast them into the furnace of fire.” 

There are points of resemblance and also of difference in the accounts 
given by the evangelists of the draught of fishes caught before the call of 

1 Tract. 122 in Joann.; also Lyranus, Jansenius, to some extent Corn, a 

Lapide, Menochius, and others. 

* Acts x. 41. 3 Tract. 122 in Joann. 4 Luke v. I. 

6 Luke v. 10. 6 Matthew xiii. 47. 





326 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

the apostles, and that which preceded the bestowal of the chief pastoral 
office upon St. Peter. In each case the fish were caught at an hour usually 
unfavorable for successful fishing, after a night had been spent in unprofit¬ 
able toil; in each case the net was cast in compliance with Christ’s com¬ 
mand, and it was Peter’s boat that was launched into the water, and Peter 
was prominent on each occasion, showing his impetuous and resolute char¬ 
acter. The first time he fell on his knees and confessed his own unworthi¬ 
ness and the exalted dignity of Jesus; the second time he plunged into the 
sea in order to reach his beloved Master before anyone else. The follow¬ 
ing are the chief points of difference: In the one case we hear of but one 
boat, in the other of two; on the first occasion Jesus was on board the 
vessel, on the second He stood on the shore, while the disciples fished; the 
second time the nets were cast only on the right side of the boat, and did not 
break under the strain; the first time they were cast all round the boat and 
did break. In one case the fish were lifted on board while the boat was 
still afloat, and carried on it to land; in the other case they were dragged 
to shore in the net, Peter being the chief agent; St. Luke tells us nothing 
as to the exact size and number of the fish caught, St. John gives very pre¬ 
cise information; on the earlier occasion catching the fish was the prelude 
to the call of the apostles, on the later to a refreshing meal. 

According to Schegg, 1 the first miraculous draught of fishes symbolized 
the apostles’ activity among the Jews, the second among the Gentiles. Ac¬ 
cording to St. Augustine, 2 the second refers to the events at the end of the 
world, and is a symbol of the Church of the elect. The sea is the world, 
the boat is the Church of Christ, and Simon Peter, the owner of the boat 
and the chief agent in catching the fish, is the foundation and chief shepherd 
of the Church. The fish are human beings who are brought to Christ by 
the preaching of salvation and the administration of the sacraments. The 
want of success that attended the fishing undertaken by the disciples at 
night suggests that those who fish for men have no prospect of success if 
they act on their own counsel and not in accordance with God’s commis¬ 
sion and the light of the gospel. The casting of the net on the right hand 
side is interpreted in various ways. St. Augustine connects it with the ad¬ 
mission of the just, who stand at our Lord’s right hand, 3 to the joys of 
heaven. Others regard it as a warning that those who fish for men must 
act in harmony with Christ and have a pure intention. The dry land con¬ 
trasted with the fickle and often stormy sea is a type of the security and 
permanence of the life on which the faithful enter at the end of the world. 
While the fish are being caught, our risen and glorified Saviour is not, as 
before, on the storm-tossed boat, but on the land, for since His resurrection 
He has remained aloof from the tempests of earthly life, and has governed 
the world from heaven, whither He will bring His faithful followers in the 
fullness of time. The fish that were caught and dragged to land were large 
and perfect, and typify those Christians who have been true to the practice 
of their religion in this life, and will therefore be admitted to eternal happi¬ 
ness. A symbolical interpretation has been assigned even to the number of 
fish caught. According to Appianus, 4 a Greek poet who lived in the reign 

1 ad Joann, xxi. 14. 

2 Tract. 122 in Joann., also St. Gregory, Horn. 24, in evang., Lyr., Corn, a 
Lap., Jansemus, Laurent, etc. 

* Matthew xxv. 33, 34. 

4 He was the author of an epic poem called Halieutica, which is still 
extant. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 327 

of Marcus Aurelius, there existed 153 varieties of fish, and consequently 
St. Jerome connects the number 153 with the task imposed upon the Church 
of bringing all men to salvation: dum et nobiles et ignobiles, divites et 
pauperes et omne genus hominum de mari hujus saeculi extrahitur ad salu- 
tem . 1 Other commentators split up the 153 into 100 + 50 + 3, but their 
explanations vary. St. Cyril says that the 100 represents the Gentiles who 
accept Christianity, the 50 the Jews who are converted, and the 3 is the 
symbol of the Trinity, in which both Gentiles and Jews must believe if they 
are to be saved. Maldonatus says that the 100 stands for the married 
people, the 50 for the widowed, and the 3 for virgins. According to Lamy 2 
there is a connection between the number of fish caught and the 153,600 
proselytes who were in the Holy Land in the time of Solomon. 3 4 * 

The meal on the seashore, after the work was done, represents the joys 
of heaven, when we have done with this life and all its anxieties, labors, and 
struggles. The mystery of the fish provided by Christ for His disciples is 
explained very briefly but beautifully by St. Augustine in the words Piscis 
assus est Christus passus * This statement becomes intelligible when we re¬ 
member how common the symbolic use of a fish was in early times. The 
Biblical accounts of miraculous draughts of fishes, the parable of the net, 
and the miraculous feeding of the multitudes with loaves and fishes no 
doubt caused the fish to be employed as a Christian symbol. It represented 
man won over to Christ by faith and baptism, and it also was an expres¬ 
sion of belief in our divine Redeemer and of hope of salvation through 
Him. The letters of the Greek word ( piscis ) are the first letters of 

the words I^croOs Xpiaros, deov vl6s, <rcoryp (Jesus Christus, filius Dei, Salva¬ 
tor ]). 6 Thus when St. Augustine says that the fish cooked and prepared for 
the disciples was a type Christi passi, he is using the ordinary symbol of the 
fish to express the profound truth that Christ was prepared by the furnace 
of suffering to become the food of the faithful, — “The bread that I will 
give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”* 


XII. Christ Confers the Primacy upon Peter 
John xxi. 15-17 


15. When therefore they had 
dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: 
Simon, son of John, lovest thou me 
more than these? He saith to him: 
Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love 
thee. He saith to him: Feed my 
lambs. 

16. He saith to him again: Simon, 
son of John, lovest thou me? He 
saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou know¬ 


est that I love thee. He saith to 
him: Feed my lambs. 

17. He said to him the third 
time: Simon, son of John, lovest 
thou me? Peter was grieved, be¬ 
cause he had said to him the third 
time, Lovest thou me ? And he said to 
him: Lord, thou knowest all things: 
thou knowest that I love thee. He 
said to him: Feed my sheep. 


St. John alone of the evangelists records how Christ bestowed 
upon Simon Peter the office of supreme pastor of the universal 


1 In Ezech. xlvii. 9. * ad loc. 3 2 Chron. ii. 17. 

4 Tract. 123 in Joann. 8 John vi. 52. 

« Compare Tertull. de Bapt. 1; August, de civit. Dei, 18, 23. 





328 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Church. The introductory words, “when therefore they had 
dined,” enables us to picture with a fair amount of certainty the 
circumstances under which Peter received the primacy that had 
already been promised him. The scene of this all-important 
event was the western shore of the Lake of Genesareth, probably 
near Caphamaum or Bethsaida, and it took place about a fort¬ 
night after our Lord’s resurrection, immediately after the 
miraculous draught of fishes and the subsequent meal. As we 
have seen in the preceding chapter, there were present on this 
occasion, so full of significance for the universal Church, besides 
Simon Peter, also Thomas, Nathanael (Bartholomew), James 
and John the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples, whose 
names are not given. 

In His wisdom, our divine Saviour had long before taught 
His followers the chief facts connected with Plis work of re¬ 
demption; He had spoken of baptism, of His own Passion, 
Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, of the coming of the Holy 
Ghost, and of the Sacrament of the Altar. Again and again, 
in very different ways, He had referred to St. Peter’s office as 
Primate and Chief Shepherd of the Flock, so that it is un¬ 
doubtedly of divine institution. We who can look back upon 
the history of the Church and the authority of the Holy See 
during a period of almost two thousand years, are forced to 
turn to our divine Master with humble gratitude, and thank Him 
for having set St. Peter’s pre-eminence beyond the range of all 
doubt, and for having thus firmly established him as the centre 
of unity for the Church that He instituted for the salvation of 
mankind. 

We have now to consider the chief events recorded in the Bible which 
led up to the bestowal of the primacy upon Peter. St. John shows his full 
appreciation of the situation when he designates the apostle who was about 
to receive this honor by both his original name and that which was con¬ 
ferred upon him later. Among the ancients a name was no mere meaning¬ 
less sound, but was fraught with significance, for it expressed the charac¬ 
teristic features of the man who bore it. The addition or bestowal of a 
name by God indicated a very special destiny or function assigned to the 
person on whom it was conferred. This was true in the case of the names 
Abraham, 1 Jacob, 2 Emmanuel, 3 John the Baptist, 4 and Jesus. * 6 When, there¬ 
fore, a new name was given to Simon, we are quite justified in the a prior i 
assumption that he thereby received a fresh dignity and a special office. T he 


2 Gen. xxxii. 28. 8 Isa. vii. 14. 

6 Matthew i. 21. 


1 Gen. xvii. 5. 

4 Luke i. 13. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 329 

circumstances under which the new name was given to the apostle bear out 
this theory. We read in Holy Scripture that the name Peter was first 
promised and then actually given to Simon, that he was confirmed in the 
possession of his new name, the meaning of which was explained, and, 
finally, that what was foretold and signified by this name was fully realized. 
Simon had originally been a disciple of John the Baptist, was brought to 
our Lord at the Jordan by his brother Andrew, and then joined the first 
band of Christ’s disciples. Our divine Lord, who reads the hearts of men, 
perceived the sturdy faith and decision of character which rendered Simon 
peculiarly fitted to be the foundation and chief shepherd of the Church, 
and therefore He promised him the name Cephas {Petrus), thus indicating 
the task that he would be required to perform. 1 The name was bestowed 
upon the apostle when he was called to be one of Christ’s chosen band. 3 
When Simon Peter bore solemn testimony to the fact that Jesus, the Son 
of Man, was the Messiah promised to the Jews and the Son of God, His 
Master not only confirmed him in the possession of the name of Peter, but 
explained that he should be the rock on which the Church would be built, 
and that in the same Church he should hold the office of supreme teacher 
and ruler. 8 The actual appointment of Simon Peter to this exalted office, to 
which, according to our Lord’s own explanation, the name Peter referred, 
took place after the Resurrection, near the Lake of Genesareth in Galilee. 
From what has been said, we shall see the significance of St. John’s state¬ 
ment at the beginning of his account: “ Jesus saith to Simon Peter.” More¬ 
over, the circumstances attending Peter’s appointment to the primacy have 
a symbolical bearing upon his exalted position. According to St. Luke, 4 a 
miraculous draught of fishes preceded the first call of the disciples in Gal¬ 
ilee, and even then Simon Peter occupied a privileged place. Two ships 
were stationed near the shore, but our Lord chose to go on board the one 
belonging to Simon, who then launched out into the deep and let down his 
net. The other disciples, of whom St. Luke mentions only the sons of 
Zebedee, although Andrew was probably also present, acted as Simon’s as¬ 
sistants; he was the spokesman, and proclaimed the draught of fish to be 
miraculous, and it was to him that Jesus addressed the solemn words, “ Fear 
not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men,” thus pointing out the symbol¬ 
ism of the act of fishing. Both ancient and modern commentators regard 
this utterance as an allusion to the prominent position which Peter was to 
occupy in the Church of Christ. His ship is a type of the Church which he 
was to govern; the other apostles were fishers of men only so far as they 
acted under his direction and in conjunction with him, for the epithet 
“ fisher of men ” was applied primarily to him by our Lord. A similar oc¬ 
currence took place immediately before his appointment to the primacy, with 
the difference that on this occasion Peter was still more conspicuous. He 
suggested going out to fish, and the others simply followed his lead and em¬ 
barked with him. It is true that John was the first to recognize Jesus, but 
Peter was the first to reach Him, and, having done so, he went back to the 
ship and dragged the net full of fishes to the shore. 

Explanation of the evangelist’s account of Simon Peter’s ap¬ 
pointment to the primacy. Jesus addressed the apostle as 
Simon, son of John, or son of Jonas. He mentioned the name 

1 John i. 42, 43. 2 Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14. 

3 Matthew xvi. 16. 4 v. I seqq. 



330 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

of Simon’s father, not in order to distinguish the apostle from 
Simon the Canaanite, also called Simon Zelotes, for such a dis¬ 
tinction was unnecessary when the disciples could see for them¬ 
selves to whom Jesus was speaking; nor was it for the benefit 
of the readers of the gospel, for St. John makes it abundantly 
clear that Jesus was addressing Simon Peter. Simon, son of 
John, should be regarded as a solemn and formal mode of ad¬ 
dress, conveying an important meaning, as we shall see if we 
consider: (i) that on the first occasion when Simon was brought 
to Jesus our Lord turned His searching gaze upon him and 
said, “Thou art Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called 
Cephas; 1 (2) later on, when Peter made his well-known con¬ 
fession of faith, our Lord said: “ Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- 
Jona; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but 
my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it.” 2 There can be no doubt 
that the mode of address, Simon, son of John, reminded Peter 
of these two previous occasions, and even if it had not done so, 
our Lord’s next words contained an obvious allusion to them. 
We may believe, therefore, that our Lord’s form of address, 
“ Simon, son of John,” was intended to intensify the solemnity 
of the moment, to show that Jesus was speaking to the apostle 
whom He had already distinguished above the others, and to 
proclaim the fulfillment of all that had been promised to him. 3 

Our Lord proceeded to ask Peter the question, “ Lovest thou 
me more than these?” and repeated it twice, slightly modifying 
its form in accordance with the answer given. Thrice did the 
apostle reply that he loved his Master, but the third time his 
sorrow constrained him to emphasize Christ’s omniscience. He 
was asked whether he had greater love for Jesus than the other 
apostles possessed, but, remembering the penalty that he had 
paid for his excessive self-confidence, 4 he was content humbly 
to assure his Master of his love. Thrice did Peter protest that 
he loved Jesus, and thrice did he receive the order to feed His 
sheep and lambs. If we wish to analyze the incident more 

1 John i. 42. 

2 Matthew xvi. 17, 18. 

3 Jansenius: tot cautionibus Christus nos monere voluit, ne . . . omnibus 
discipulis commune esse putaremus id quod hie Petro tribuit. 

4 Matthew xxvi. 33. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


33i 


closely, we are confronted with three questions: Why did Jesus 
insist so much upon Peter’s love? Why did He ask the question 
and pronounce His order three times? How are we to under¬ 
stand the instructions to feed Christ’s sheep and lambs? 

After Peter had made his solemn, definite confession of faith, 
the primacy in Christ’s Church was promised him, and after he 
had professed his deep love of his Master, he was appointed 
chief shepherd of Christ’s entire flock. Faith and love are most 
closely connected, faith is the root of love, and from faith love 
derives its life and strength. Only the love that proceeds from 
firm faith has power to lift men out of the lower sphere of their 
own selfish thoughts and aims, and to raise them to a higher 
level, where they become capable of heroic deeds for the honor 
of God and the welfare of men. The mutual relation between 
faith and love shows that if any shepherd of souls wishes to be 
successful in his calling, he must possess both firm faith and 
unselfish love. We see, therefore, why at the moment when our 
Lord was about to appoint Peter to be the chief shepherd of 
His flock, He required of him more ardent love than of the 
other disciples. Every true shepherd must necessarily possess 
a generous, self-sacrificing love of his sheep, as our Saviour 
taught in the incomparably beautiful parable of the Good Shep¬ 
herd. 1 When on this occasion He asked St. Peter, “ Lovest thou 
me?” He was completing the instruction already given in the 
parable, and teaching that a shepherd’s love for his flock must 
be the outcome of his love for Christ, who purchased that flock 
with His own blood. 2 Since a shepherd of souls has to feed 
and govern Christ’s flock, he must love them with that pure and 
holy love which proceeds from a love of Christ, supplies strength 
and courage and power to achieve noble works, aiming only at 
God’s glory and the good of souls. 3 


1 John x. 1. 

2 Acts xx. 28. 

3 Aug. Tract. 123 in Joann.: Quid est aliud, diligis me? pasce oves meas , 
quam si diceretur: si me diligis, non te pascere cogita, sed oves meas sicut 
meas pasce, non sicut tuas; gloriam meam in eis quaere, non tuam; domi¬ 
nium meum, non tuum ; lucra mea, non tua? St. Augustine goes on to warn 
shepherds against self-love and self-seeking, since both are fraught with 
danger both to themselves and the flocks entrusted to their care: non sint 
seipsos amantes, qui pascunt oves Christi, ne tanquam suas, sed tanquam 
ipsius eas pascant, et velint ex illis sua lucra conquirere, sicut amatores 
pecuniae: vel eis dominari sicut elati; vel gloriari de honoribus, quos ab 
eis sumunt, sicut superbi; vel in tantum progredi, ut etiam haereses facianl 



332 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Why did Jesus ask Peter three times whether he loved Him, 
and commission him three times to feed His sheep? We can¬ 
not assume that the threefold question implied any doubt of 
St. Peter’s assurance, for Jesus, being omniscient, perceived the 
apostle’s love, and showed Himself to be aware of it by the 
very fact of bidding him to feed His sheep even as soon as Peter 
had answered for the first time. The threefold question and 
the threefold commission mark the solemnity of the occasion, 
but we may notice further that three is the number of spiritual 
perfection, * 1 and that there were three stages in the promise of 
the primacy: Peter was first declared to be the foundation upon 
which Christ would build His Church; then the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven were promised him, and, lastly, the power 
to bind and to loose from sin was conferred upon him. Thrice 
did Jesus question Peter as to his love, thrice did He appoint 
him to feed His flock, thus to lay stress upon the importance 
of the office bestowed upon him, and upon the necessity of per' 
feet love of Christ as an indispensable condition for the due 
discharge of its duties. Of course St. Peter’s threefold profes' 
sion of love may be compared with his threefold denial of his 
Master, but we may be sure that our Lord did not ask the ques' 
tion three times for the express purpose of giving the apostle 
an opportunity to atone for his previous denial. Peter had 
already given expression to his profound sorrow for his fall and 
to his intense love of the Master whom he had denied, for im' 
mediately after the denial he went out and wept bitterly. 

When our Lord asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the other 
apostles, the answer was only, “ Thou knowest that I love thee ”; but there 
can be no doubt that his love was really greater than that of the others, 

sicut blasphenii; nec cedant sanctis patribus, sicut parentibus non obedi- 
entes; et eis, qui illos corrigere volunt, quia perire nolunt, mala pro bonis 
reddant sicut ingrati, interficiant animas et suas et alienas sicut irreligiosi; 
non compatiantur infirmis sicut sine affectione; famam sanctorum maculare 
conentur; sicut detractores, cupiditates pessimas non refrenent sicut inconti- 
nentes; exerceant lites sicut immites; nesciant subvenire sicut sine benigni- 
tate; indicent inimicis piorum, quae occultanda cognoverint, sicut proditores; 
humanam verecundiam inverecunda exagitatione perturbent sicut procaces; 
non intelligant neque quae loquuntur neque de quibus affirmant sicut caecati; 
laetitias carnales spiritualibus gaudiis anteponant sicut voluptatum amatores 
magis quam Dei. 

1 August. De serm. Dorn, in monte, c. 19. Jansenius writes: trinum illud 
examen amoris . . . significat,incesso, stabili ac perfecto Christi amore ad 
pascendum opus esse, terna enim inculcatio perfectionis indicium est. Unde 
etiam ter committit ei gregem suum, ut indicet commissae rei magnitudinem 
ac definitum commitientis consilium. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 333 

and that Jesus, by conferring the primacy upon Peter, gave him a greater 
proof of affection than He gave to any of the rest. 1 This being so, we have 
to consider why John, and not Peter, is called the beloved disciple. This 
question is discussed more or less thoroughly by the earlier commentators, 2 
who think that while Peter’s love was greater and stronger, and that there¬ 
fore he received a more conspicuous proof of his Master’s affection, John’s 
love was more tender, and as the virgin disciple he received evidence of 
more tender feeling on the part of Jesus: licet Joannes tenerius diligeret 
Jesum, tamen Petrus eundem diligebat robustius et ardentius, ut patet ex 
omnibus ejus circa Jesum factis et dictis. This seems to be the reason why 
St. John is called the beloved disciple. 

When our Lord, standing by the Lake of Tiberias, commis^ 
rioned Simon Peter to feed His sheep, He fulfilled the promise 
to build His Church on Peter and to appoint him to be its chief 
ruler, for He made him the supreme shepherd of the entire 
Church and equipped him with powers to teach and govern with 
authority. 3 In the beautiful parable of the Good Shepherd, 
Christ spoke of Himself as the good shepherd per eminentiam, 
and mentioned as the principal duties attached to the pastoral 
office those of feeding, guiding, and protecting the flock. Look¬ 
ing forward to the time after His own death and ascension 
Christ announced prophetically: “ And other sheep I have, that 
are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear 
my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” 4 

When the “ Prince of Pastors,” as St. Peter 5 calls Him, was 
about to return to heaven He appointed Simon Peter, the chief 
of the apostles, to be His visible representative and to hold the 
pastoral office. 

Feeding the flock. Our Lord defined the task allotted to St. 
Peter in language the symbolical meaning of which is easily 
comprehensible. Peter was divinely entrusted with the task of 
feeding and governing the flock of Christ. In the English 
the word “ feed ” is used all three times, but in the Greek the 
word so translated in verse 16 is not the same as in verses 15 
and 17, as we shall see farther on. Peter’s primary duty was 
to provide wholesome nourishment for the flock. St. John has 

1 Chrys. Horn. 87 in Joann.; compare Brev. octav. Joann. Ap. et Evang. 

2 e.g., Corn, a Lap.; Estius, Ann. ad loc. 

3 Cone. Vatic. Constit. dogm. de eccl. Christi Jesu, c. 1: Atque uni Simoni 
Petro contulit Jesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris 
jurisdictionem in totum suum ovile dicens: pasce agnos meos, pasce oves 
meas. 

4 John x. 16. 

6 1 Peter v. 4. 



334 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


not left us in doubt as to the nature of the spiritual food re¬ 
quired by Christ’s flock, for he bears testimony that the Word 
brought the fullness of grace and truth to the world and de¬ 
posited it in His Church, 1 and that mankind by belief in the 
same can attain to life everlasting. 2 Peter, acting as Christ’s 
vicar in the pastoral office, has to furnish the faithful with the 
Messianic treasures of salvation, and give them especially the 
spiritual of revealed truth. But besides feeding, Peter was also 
to guide and govern the flock. In the threefold charge the Vul¬ 
gate, like the English, has the same verb each time, but in the 
Greek (36<TKeiv is used in verses 15 and 17, while the verb in 
verse 16 is TroLp.alvet.v , which signifies to guide, direct, as well 
as to feed. The alteration poaKeuv — xot/iaimv — fioanav — 
shows that in this passage we must take Troip.ai.veiv in its 
secondary sense, as referring to the governing power which 
Peter was to exercise in his capacity as Christ’s representative. 
Thus a double duty was assigned to him, which St. Augustine 
states briefly and clearly in the words: Christies oves pascendas, 
hoc est, docendas regendasque committit. 

The flock entrusted to Peter. We must notice in the first in¬ 
stance that Jesus spoke of the sheep and lambs as His; thus the 
pastoral office conferred upon Peter is seen to be one that he 
was to hold as vicegerent of Christ, the Supreme Shepherd. 
The printed edition of the Vulgate reads agnos , lambs, in 
verses 15 and 16, and oves, sheep, in verse 17. The Greek, 
however, reads t<x apvLa , lambs, only in verse 15; in verses 16 
and 17 either rd 7 rpo(3a.Tia, little sheep, or rd Trpbfiara, sheep, 
both readings being well supported. Also in the MSS. of the 
I tala and Vulgate there are variant readings, and St. Ambrose 
gives the three charges as follows: pasce agniculos meos , pasce 
agnos meos, pasce oviculas meets . 3 As St. Peter was commis¬ 
sioned to feed and govern Christ’s sheep and lambs without 
exception, his pastoral office extends to the whole Church. In 
his famous Consideratio 4 addressed to Pope Eugenius III, St. 
Bernard of Clairvaux writes: pasce oves meas — quas? illius vel 
illius populos civitatis, aut nationis, aut certi regni? Oves 
meas inquit. Nihil excipitur, ubi nihil distinguitur. Since, 


a John v. 24 
4 2,8 


1 John i. 14. 

8 See Tisch. ad loc. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 335 

therefore, no one is exempt from' the authority of Peter, it 
follows that his primacy extends over even his fellow apostles. 
The position which he occupied in the apostolic college in virtue 
of possessing the supreme pastoral office is defined by St. John 
Chrysostom thus: Praeteriens autem Dominus alios Petro . . . 
loquitur; eximius enim apostolorum erat Petrus, et os discipu- 
lorum et vertex collegii; unde et negatione deleta committit ei 
praelationem fratrum. Et negationem quidem ei non exprobrat, 
sed dicit: si diligis me, praeside fratribus . 1 There can be no 
doubt that the word fratres here denotes Peter’s fellow apostles. 
In another place 2 the same writer paraphrases our Lord’s charge 
to Peter thus: “Preside over thy brethren,” and continues to 
say that the pastoral office involves the duty of presiding over 
his colleagues. The Pseudo-Augustine writes in precisely the 
same tone; he discusses the question why Jesus paid the Temple 
tax for Himself and Peter only, 3 and concludes by saying: Sal¬ 
vator autem, cum pro se et Petro dari jubet, pro omnibus ex- 
solvisse videtur; quia sicut in Salvatore erant omnes causa 
magisterii, it a et post Salvatorem in Petro omnes continentur. 
Ipsum autem constituit esse caput eorum, ut pastor esset gregis 
Dominici . 4 The last sentence shows quite plainly that the 
author of the Quaestiones reckoned the apostles as belonging to 
Christ’s flock, of which Simon Peter was appointed supreme 
shepherd. In a discourse ascribed to Eusebius, Bishop of Emisa, 
in Phoenicia, who probably died in 359 a.d., the agni and oves 
are interpreted thus: prius agnos, deinde oves committit, quia 
non solum pastorem, sed pastorem pastorum eunl constituit. 
Pascit igitur Petrus agnos, pascit et oves; pascit filios, pascit et 
matres; regit et subditos et praelatos, omnium igitur pastor est, 
quia praeter agnos et oves in ecclesia nihil est . 5 Here we have 
the flock, of which Peter is shepherd, divided into the ecclesia 
audiens and ecclesia docens; 6 other commentators, however, 
think that the lambs are the beginners and the sheep those fur¬ 
ther advanced in the faith; or that the lambs are imperfect, the 
sheep perfect; 7 while others again attach no particular signifi- 


1 Horn, in Joann. 37. 

* Horn. 88, I in Joann., irpoLarcuxo ruv dde\(pvv — 7 Tpoaraala ruv dde\<puiv, 

8 Matthew xvii. 23-26. 

* Quaest. 75 ex N. T. 

5 Serm. de nativ. Joannis evang. 

6 So also Bellarmine, Jansen, and others. 

7 Lyranus, Menochius, and others. 



336 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

cance to the change in the noun. 1 The meaning of our Lord’s 
utterance is by no means affected by the interpretation given 
to the words “ sheep ” and “ lambs.” We may regard them as 
denoting the same people, or we may assign a particular mean¬ 
ing to each, but in either case the sense of the passage is that 
Peter was appointed supreme shepherd over the entire flock of 
Christ. 

On the day of the Resurrection all the apostles received power to for¬ 
give sins, and later on, in Galilee, all were supplied with apostolic authority, 
but Peter alone was made shepherd of Christ’s whole flock, and the other 
apostles received later their commission to act as shepherds, and they re¬ 
ceived it collectively and in conjunction with Peter. Hence it follows that, 
although the other apostles were true shepherds, Peter was the chief shep¬ 
herd appointed by Christ Himself, and the others were shepherds only in 
union with, and in subordination to, Peter. 

That the Fathers regarded Peter’s pastoral office as a genuine 
primacy is clear from their remarks concerning the object for 
which this office was conferred upon him. Before our Saviour 
appointed Peter to be chief shepherd, He stated that His object 
was to preserve the unity of His flock, — “ there shall be one fold 
and one shepherd.” 2 The Fathers declare emphatically that 
Peter was made head of the apostolic band and chief shepherd 
of the Church in order that the unity of the Church might be 
maintained and manifested. St. Jerome says in general terms : 
proterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schis - 
matis tollatur occasion In his work on the unity of the Catholic 
Church St. Cyprian writes that Christ conferred the pastoral 
office and the power of the keys upon Peter ut unitatem mani - 
festaret, unam cathedram constituit et unitatis ejusdem originem 
ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit . Primatus Petro 
datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur . 4 It is 
true that particularly in the fourth chapter of St. Cyprian’s 
work there are a few passages which do not occur in all the 
manuscripts, but, as Dollinger points out, it does not matter if 
single passages are later interpolations, since the work as a 
whole is permeated with the idea of the unity of the Church, 
this unity being the result of St. Peter’s office. Even if the 
passages in question were not in the original text, they are cer¬ 
tainly expansions of its obvious meaning. St. Augustine agrees 


1 Maldonatus, De la Haye, Calmet, and others. 
8 Adv. Jovin. i, 26. 


2 John x. 16. 
4 C. 4. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 337 

with St. Cyprian, and writes: in ipso Petro unitatem commen- 
davit . Multi erant apostoli , et uni dicitur: pasce oves meas . 1 
St. Leo the Great speaks of Peter as representing the unity of 
the entire Church of Christ: Hu jus enim muneris sacr amentum 
it a Dominus ad omnium apostolorum officium pertinere voluit, 
ut in beato Petro apostolorum omnium summo principaliter col- 
locaret et ab ipso quasi quodam capite dona sua velit in corpus 
omne manare, ut exsortem se mysterii intelligeret esse divini, 
qui ausus fuerit a Petri soliditate recedere 2 

The natural conclusion at which we arrive after reading the 
above quotations from the Fathers, is that Simon Peter was 
appointed shepherd of Christ’s flock, in order that thus the unity 
of the Church might be manifested and preserved; consequently 
his office must have been that of chief shepherd, and all the 
other apostles, though they were also shepherds, were subordi¬ 
nate to him. 

According to Protestant scholars, all that took place by the Lake of 
Tiberius was merely the restoration of Peter to his position as an apostle, 
for he had temporarily forfeited this honor by his threefold denial. The ad¬ 
vocates of this theory try to strengthen it by pointing out that Jesus asked 
Peter three times whether he loved Him. St. Cyril suggests a restoration 
of the apostolate to Peter, both in his exposition of this passage and in his 
discussion of the charge given to the apostle by Christ: et tu aliquando con- 
versus confirma fratres. In commenting on the latter passage, he remarks: 
admirare igitur exuberantiam divina patientiae; ne diffidere discipulmn face- 
ret, nondum patrato crimine largitus est veniam ac iterum ipsum in aposto- 
lico gradu restituit dicens: confirma fratres tuos. Adalbert Maier too 
seems to think that Peter first lost and then recovered the primacy, for he 
says that Christ “ renewed ” Peter’s apostolic vocation on the condition that 
he loved Him, and that the commission to feed Christ’s flock should be re¬ 
garded as a “ renewal ” of that exalted dignity previously conferred on 
Peter (Matthew xvi. 18). On the other hand, the fact that our Lord ques¬ 
tioned Peter three times does not appear to be an adequate reason for 
adopting this theory, and even some Protestant commentators have hesi¬ 
tated to accept it. There is nothing in what took place after St. Peter’s 
denial to suggest in any way that he forfeited his position even for a time; 
in fact the evidence tends to show that he never ceased to be an apostle. 
Mary Magdalen carried the news that the sepulchre was empty to Peter and 
the other disciple,* Peter played the chief part when he and John visited 
the tomb, * 4 * and the women were sent by the angel to convey our Lord’s mes¬ 
sage to the apostles “and to Peter.” 6 On the occasion of the miraculous 
draught of fishes this apostle was unmistakably the leader of the other dis¬ 
ciples.* Quite apart from the fact that the apostles did not receive full 


* Sermo 46. 

* John xx. 2. 

8 Mark xvi. 7 * 


* Ad episc. Vienn. ep. 10. 

4 John xx. 6. 

e John xxi. 1. 




338 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

authority until after the Resurrection, Peter, if he had ever really lost his 
apostolic office in consequence of his denial, would have recovered it on 
the evening of Easter Sunday, since he, like all the rest, then received power 
to forgive sins. 1 

Our exegetical discussion of St. Peter’s pastoral office and of 
the remarks made by the Fathers regarding the nature, signifi¬ 
cance, and aim of this office, has enabled us to arrive at the 
following conclusions: Simon Peter, being the representative 
of Christ, the Supreme Shepherd, received the chief pastoral 
office; it was his task to feed and guide, i.e., to teach and govern, 
the whole of Christ’s flock, without any exception. The duty 
thus laid upon him carries with it the prerogative of holding 
the supreme teaching office and authority to rule over all others. 
Authority to teach and govern is expressed briefly in the word 
primacy; hence we may say that the manner in which Peter was 
repeatedly singled out for mention indicated the primacy which 
was definitely promised him by Christ after the apostle’s solemn 
profession of faith, and was actually conferred upon Peter near 
the Lake of Tiberias, when he received the commission to feed 
and guide Christ’s flock. 


XIII. The Bestowal of Authority on the Apostles 


Matthew xxviii. 16-20 

16. And the eleven disciples went 
into Galilee, unto the mountain 
where Jesus had appointed them. 

17. And seeing him they adored: 
but some doubted. 

18. And Jesus coming, spoke to 
them, saying: All power is given to 
me in heaven and in earth. 

19. Going therefore teach ye all 
nations: baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost. 

20. Teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have com¬ 
manded you: and behold I am with 
you all days, even to the consumma¬ 
tion of the world. 


1 Cor. xv. 6 

6. Then was he seen by more 
than five hundred brethren at once: 
of whom many remain until this 
present, and some are fallen asleep. 


It was in Galilee that Jesus began His public ministry and 
spent most of His life; there He called His apostles and sent 


1 John xx. 21-23. 





RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 339 

them forth on their first missionary journey, and they seem to 
have been all Galileans by birth, with the exception of Judas 
Iscariot. In Galilee they gradually attained to a fuller knowl¬ 
edge of their Master’s personality and a deeper comprehension 
of His Messianic work. This part of Palestine was remote 
from the centre of Judaism, and after His resurrection our 
Saviour assembled His disciples there, intending thence to send 
them forth to preach the gospel to all mankind. Before His 
death He had foretold that they should see Him in Galilee, 1 and 
after His resurrection He bade them repair thither. 2 St. Mat¬ 
thew, alone of the evangelists, records our Lord’s meeting the 
eleven apostles on the mountain in Galilee, and the bestowal 
upon them of the full apostolic authority. 

St. Paul mentions an occasion on which our risen Lord was seen by five 
hundred disciples at once. Whether this was in Galilee or not will be dis¬ 
cussed at the end of the present section. Later on we shall deal with the 
further question why St. Matthew’s account ought probably not to be iden¬ 
tified with the somewhat similar one in St. Mark. 

We have seen in a previous chapter that the apostles did not 
leave Jerusalem for Galilee until after the octave day of the 
Pasch. St. Matthew tells us that our Lord appeared to the 
eleven on a mountain in Galilee, whither they had gone in obedi¬ 
ence to His orders. The evangelist does not state when and 
where these orders were issued, nor how the apostles learned 
that they were to go to “ the,” i.e. some previously appointed, 
mountain. This information was probably given them on one 
or other of the two occasions when our Lord appeared to them 
in Jerusalem, appearances which are not mentioned by St 
Matthew, who seems to take for granted that his readers were 
aware of them. 

Many commentators think that our Lord appeared on Mount Thabor, 
which, according to a tradition dating from the fourth century, was the 
scene of the Transfiguration. It is situated about six miles to the southeast 
of Nazareth, is over 1900 feet high, and rises about 1300 feet above the hills 
in the neighborhood, so that it commands an extensive and beautiful view. 
The summit has been levelled and surrounded with a wall, within which 
stand a Latin and a Greek monastery. There is a close connection between 
what took place at our Lord’s Transfiguration and at His appearance after 
the resurrection. At His transfiguration, when His Messianic activity was 
near its close, a voice from heaven proclaimed Him to be the lawgiver for 
mankind. After His resurrection our Saviour appeared in glory to equip 


1 Mark xiv. 28. 


3 Matthew xxviii. 7, 10. 



340 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


His apostles with Messianic authority, and commission them to preach the 
gospel of salvation to the whole world. According to B. Weiss the Mount 
of the Beatitudes is actually indicated as that on which Jesus appeared in 
Galilee. He connects ov with iraiaro and explains the passage as meaning 
“the mountain where Jesus had pronounced the injunctions contained in the 
Sermon on the Mount.” Most scholars, however, connect our Lord’s com¬ 
mand to the apostles to go to Galilee with His resurrection, and, if this be 
correct, Weiss’s interpretation is not in harmony with the situation. 

The apostles were privileged to see their Master on this moun¬ 
tain. St. Matthew describes His appearance and its immediate 
effect upon them in the words, “ Seeing him they adored, but 
some doubted.” The verb “ to adore ” must not be taken here 
in the wider sense of showing reverence by falling prostrate, but 
in its literal signification; they worshipped Jesus as Son of God, 
and as God, for His resurrection was the most evident proof of 
His divinity . 1 There are difficulties involved in the statement 
that some doubted. Who doubted? and what was the nature 
of their doubts ? Those commentators who assume that only the 
apostles were present when Jesus appeared on the mountain in 
Galilee are forced to admit that some of the eleven were still 
unconvinced. Many think that the evangelist’s words refer to 
doubts that the apostles had formerly entertained but had now 
abandoned ; 2 others maintain that the doubt felt by the apostles 
concerned, not the fact of Christ’s resurrection, but the identity 
with their risen Saviour of Him whom they now beheld . 3 St. 
Matthew’s statement that Jesus then approached the disciples 
supplies this interpretation with some amount of probability. 
On the other hand, all who believe that the “five hundred 
brethren ” mentioned by St. Paul 4 were present as well as the 
eleven apostles, think that the doubters belonged to the number 
of disciples in the wider sense. 

Our Lord bestows Messianic authority upon the apostles. 
An all-important incident now occurred. The apostles had been 
called just two years earlier and since that time had been trained 
for the work which was to be entrusted to them; now they were 
appointed to be our Lord’s representatives, were equipped with 
full Messianic authority and commissioned to preach salvation 

1 Rom. i. 4. 

3 Estius, Tirinus, and Jansenius. 

3 Menochius, Lamy, Jansenius (to some extent), Knabenbauer, and 
others. 

4 i Cor. xv. 6. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


34i 


to all nations. Coming close to them, Jesus said solemnly, “ All 
power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” Commentators 1 
point out that “ power ” here does not mean divine omnipotence, 
but is used in a special way to denote our Divine Redeemer’s 
Messianic authority, through which men are delivered from the 
bondage of sin, transferred to a state of freedom, sanctified as 
children of God, and brought to the bliss and glory of heaven . 2 
This power has been “given” to Jesus, i.e., He possesses it be¬ 
cause He, being the Son of God, became Man, and because He, 
as our Redeemer, through shedding His blood, purchased man¬ 
kind for His own possession . 3 To Christ was given all power 
in heaven and in earth; that is to say He possesses the sum-total 
of all Messianic authority, because He alone is Redeemer, 
Founder, Preserver, Ruler, and Protector of the Messianic 
kingdom, wherein the human race is sanctified and blessed. 
Christ’s Messianic power extends to heaven, because He has 
gone before to open to the redeemed the gates of heaven , 4 which 
had been closed to man in consequence of his fall into sin. In 
heaven Christ has prepared a dwelling for His people ; 5 from 
heaven He sends forth the Holy Ghost, and He will gather 
thither all the faithful in the Church triumphant. 

Because Christ, being the Redeemer of all mankind, possesses 
Messianic power in all its fullness, the apostolic authority be¬ 
stowed upon the apostles and their successors as Christ’s repre¬ 
sentatives on earth is the outcome of the power possessed by our 
divine Redeemer. The intimate connection between the author¬ 
ity of the apostles and our Lord’s Messianic power is expressed 
in the Greek by the inferential particle ovv, igitur, which connects 
the commission to the apostles with the preceding words. The 
whole world was assigned to them as the sphere of their activity; 
their task was to convert mankind and, by means of baptism, 
to make men members of the Church; and, further, they were 
to teach the faithful so that they might become more and more 


1 e.g., Maldonatus, Estius, and Jansenius. 

* Estius remarks: potestas, quae respicit salutem animarum. 

* 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Peter i. 18. On the subject of this power and when it 
was given to Christ, Maldonatus says: non de ea loquitur potestate, quam 
ut Deus, nec de ea, quam ut homo, sed de ea, quam ut redemptor hominum 
habet, quam per mortem et resurrectionem sibi comparaverat. 

4 Rom. v. 2. 

6 John xiv. 2. 



342 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

perfect, and finally attain to salvation. Jesus, the Messiah prom¬ 
ised to the Jews, is the Saviour of all men; and although He 
limited His own ministry to the Holy Land, He taught most 
emphatically that His gospel was intended for the entire human 
race in every age. The Jews, being by birth citizens of the 
Messianic kingdom, had the first claim to the benefits of salva¬ 
tion, but they were not alone entitled to them. On the contrary, 
the Messiah Himself foretold the rejection of the Jews on ac¬ 
count of their unbelief, and the call of the Gentiles throughout 
the world to participate in the Messianic blessing. 1 When the 
apostles were sent out on their first missionary journey, they 
had been forbidden to preach beyond the confines of Palestine, 2 
but on this second occasion they were ordered to go forth into 
the whole world and offer to all nations the Messianic salvation. 
Just before His ascension our Lord pointed out still more pre¬ 
cisely the way in which the apostles were to accomplish their 
mission, and said: “You shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusa¬ 
lem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part 
of the earth.” 8 

Baptism to be administered by the apostles. “ Going there¬ 
fore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” By means 
of baptism the apostles were to make men disciples of Christ and 
members of His Church. The Greek word rendered in the 
Vulgate by docete, teach, is /ua^reuo-are : make (them) disci¬ 
ples, viz., by means of baptism, as our Saviour proceeded to 
explain. 

On this occasion our Lord gave no special instructions as to the manner 
in which baptism was to be administered, and they would have been super¬ 
fluous for several reasons. His disciples had not only been eyewitnesses 
of John’s administration of baptism, but they had actually baptized for 
some time when they were with John in Judea. 4 There is nothing in the 
gospels to suggest that there was externally any difference in the two cases, 
in fact we may safely assume that there was none. Baptism as instituted 
by Christ differed not in the outward action from the rite performed by 
His forerunner, but differed in the words that accompanied the action and 
the effect produced. The apostles had been already instructed to some 
extent on these two points, but now their instruction was more explicit. 
Jesus now spoke of discipleship, membership of His Church, as an effect 
produced by the baptism that He prescribed, but His followers had already 


1 Matthew vii. n, 12. 

a Compare John iii. 22 seqq., with iv. 2. 


2 Matthew x. 5. 
4 Acts i. 8. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


343 


been taught the spiritual results of Christian baptism. John the Baptist 
had testified on two distinct occasions that Jesus, being the Messiah, would 
baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire, 1 and our Lord not only accepted 
this testimony with approval, 2 but, in speaking of Nicodemus, stated clearly 
the manner and effect of this spiritual baptism in the words: “ Amen, amen, 
I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he 
cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ” 8 (i.e., he cannot enter, or become 
a member of, the Church of Christ). In the next verse He explained the 
necessity and nature of this re-birth, and added: “ That which is born of 
the flesh is flesh'; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 

Baptism,, as instituted by Christ, has to be administered: in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
According to Biblical usage, the name of God or of Christ means 
all that God the Father or Christ is for men, and all that men, 
in consequence of divine revelation, recognize as God, and de¬ 
sire to express by His name. Thus to be baptized in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost means 
that baptism, as prescribed by Christ, brings us into the closest 
spiritual connection with the Most Holy Trinity, pledges us to 
acknowledge the Trinity, and makes us participate in the re¬ 
demption, ordained by God the Father from all eternity, accom¬ 
plished in time by the incarnate Son of God, and rendered 
accessible to each individual through the Holy Ghost sent forth 
from the Father and the Son. An obvious deduction is that the 
act of baptism must be performed while the name of the Trinity 
is uttered. The Church has set this interpretation upon our 
Lord’s words, and has invariably regarded this formula as 
essential and necessary to the validity of the sacrament. We 
learn from the Doctrina duodecim apostolorum 4 that the invo¬ 
cation of the Trinity was always considered the indispensable 
formula for the administration of baptism. Many commenta¬ 
tors regard our Lord’s words as a direct order to invoke the 
Trinity at the administration of this sacrament: baptizare in 
nomine, sen in nomen, hoc est, invocato nomine Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus Sane tip 

There can be no doubt that the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by 
Jesus Christ, but theologians differ as to the date of its institution. In all 

1 Compare Matthew iff. n; Mark i. 8; Luke iff. 16; John i. 33. 

2 Acts i. 5. 

3 John iii. 5. 

4 C. 7 . tclvtcl Tr&vTa vpoeiirovres /3airrlcrare els rb 6vop.a rod viov Kal rov 
tiylov TTveifiaros ev HSclti f (avn . Compare Just. Apol. I. 6l. 

6 Corn, a Lap., ad loc.; compare Maldonatus. 



344 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


probability our Saviour instituted the sacrament about three weeks after 
His resurrection, when, having assembled His apostles on a mountain in 
Galilee, He sent them forth to baptize all nations. There are several argu¬ 
ments in support of this theory. As the redemption accomplished by Christ 
on the cross is communicated to each individual at his baptism, it seems 
very likely that this sacrament was not instituted until after our Lord’s 
death. The disciples were not instructed as to the form of its administra¬ 
tion until, being on the mountain in Galilee, their glorified Saviour commis¬ 
sioned them to go forth and baptize. The period between the Resurrection 
and the Ascension has always been called the season of mysteries, be¬ 
cause it was then that our Lord instituted the mysteries of salvation. It is 
improbable that Christ instituted baptism before choosing the apostles to 
administer it; hence we can scarcely regard His own baptism in the Jordan, 
or His conversation with Nicodemus, or the baptism of His disciples in 
Judea at the beginning of His public ministry, as the occasion when the 
sacrament was instituted. It is better to regard all these occurrences as 
preliminary to its institution. Even when our Lord Himself baptized the 
apostles at an earlier date, we may consider their baptism as an application 
by anticipation of the merits of Christ’s redemption, limited to the nar¬ 
rowest circle of His followers, and we must distinguish between this bap¬ 
tism and the institution of the sacrament, which was to communicate to all 
mankind the redemption accomplished by Christ. Anabaptists consider the 
baptism of infants to be wrong and invalid for the reason that Jesus com¬ 
missioned the apostles to teach before baptizing; but this argument has no 
weight, for, according to the words of Holy Scripture, they were ordered 
by baptism to make men Christ’s disciples and members of His Church. 
Whether or not an instruction must precede baptism depends therefore upon 
the subjective condition of the individual to be baptized. 

In the Acts of the Apostles we frequently hear of baptism in the name 
of Jesus Christ, or in the name of the Lord Jesus. 1 2 3 The question has been 
raised whether the apostles, in administering baptism, baptized simply in the 
name of Jesus Christ, and, if so, whether their baptism was valid. Some 
theologians think that the apostles, in virtue of some special permission, 
used the formula: “I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ”: ut nomen 
Jesu Christi, quod erat odiosum Judaeis et gentilibus, honorabile reddere- 
tur per hoc, quod ad ejus invocationem Spiritus sanctus dabatur in baptisrno .* 
It seems more probable that this expression simply serves to distinguish the 
sacrament instituted by Christ from the rite administered by St. John, and 
that the Trinity was always invoked by the apostles when they baptized. 

Whoever has been made by baptism a member of the Church, 
must also live in accordance with the true faith, if he is to be 
saved. Our Lord taught this important truth in many different 
ways, of which it will be enough to quote two instances. In 
the Sermon on the Mount He solemnly admonished His hearers 
and said: “Not every one that saith to me: Lord, Lord, shall 
enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of 
my Father who is in heaven.” 8 God’s will is made known in 

1 Acts ii. 18; viii. 12, 16; x. 48; xix. 5. 

2 Thomas Aquinas. 

3 Matthew vii. 21. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


345 


the commandments proclaimed by Jesus Christ. In the parable 
with which the Sermon on the Mount concludes, 1 our Saviour 
pointed out the great advantage of practising His doctrine in 
every-day life, and the utter ruin that is certain to overtake 
those who neglect to do so. When He commissioned the 
apostles to act as His representatives on earth, He charged them 
to guide and rule all nations, and to teach them to observe all 
things whatsoever He had commanded. Therefore, according 
to Christ’s own doctrine, if the faithful are to be saved, they 
must obey His commandments, in addition to baptism and the 
faith. Many of the Fathers lay great stress on the word all in 
the phrase “ all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” A 
Christian is not free to pick and choose which commandments 
he will observe, and which he will neglect; all things commanded 
by Christ have the force of His authority. To the apostles this 
commission was equivalent to a direct charge to order every¬ 
thing in the spirit of Christ, so as to promote the fulfillment of 
His commandments. First and foremost it was their duty to 
expound the commandments of God, but this was not the whole 
of their task; they were required to teach by means of example, 
to admonish, to warn, to recall those who had gone astray, and 
to decide how transgressors might be reconciled with the Church. 

A glorious promise was connected with the commission given 
to the apostles; our Lord declared that He would be with them 
all days, even to the consummation of the world. The use of 
the word “ behold ” as an introduction to this promise marks it 
as peculiarly important. It was uttered at a time when Jesus 
was with the apostles only occasionally and for brief periods; 
moreover, He was about to return forever to heaven, and yet 
He promised to abide perpetually with them. There can be no 
doubt that the teaching which they had already received enabled 
them to understand our Lord’s meanng. When sending them 
out on their first missionary journey, He assured them that in 
preaching and defending the gospel the Holy Spirit would speak 
through their lips. 2 In the long farewell discourse pronounced 
in the cenaculum at Jerusalem, just before His Passion, our 
divine Lord promised His disciples “ another Paraclete,” who 
should abide with them forever, strengthening and consoling 


1 Matthew vii. 24-29. 


2 Matthew x. 20. 



346 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

them, and bringing them to a full comprehension of His doc¬ 
trine. 1 Thus our Lord’s words here must be understood as 
referring to the continual and uninterrupted assistance of the 
Holy Ghost. The concluding words, “even to the consumma¬ 
tion of the world,” show that Jesus made the promise, not to 
the apostles as individuals, but also to their successors in the 
apostolic office. 

Finally we have to consider whether our Lord’s appearance on a moun¬ 
tain in Galilee may be identified with His appearance to more than five hun¬ 
dred brethren, which St. Paul mentions. 2 Many early commentators iden¬ 
tify the two occasions, 3 and also of more recent writers some are inclined 
to consider their identity as at least probable, but the majority 4 express 
themselves more or less decidedly against it. Those who reject it point out 
that St. Matthew speaks only of the apostles, and therefore we must be¬ 
lieve that Jesus appeared exclusively to them. This argument has weight, 
but is not conclusive, for with equal justice commentators might maintain, 
as some actually do, that our Lord appeared twice only after His resurrec¬ 
tion, since St. Matthew records only two appearances. Those who identify 
the two occasions argue thus: Our Lord’s appearance to the five hundred 
disciples must be regarded as peculiarly solemn, and it is very probable 
that it occurred on the occasion and at the place which Jesus had re¬ 
peatedly announced to His apostles. If this were the case, we could easily 
account for the presence of almost all our Lord’s followers in Galilee at the 
same time and place. Moreover, it seems very likely that the faithful in 
Galilee witnessed the bestowal of apostolic authority upon the eleven. St. 
Peter’s speech at the election of Matthias to fill up the number of the 
apostolic band indicates that, when Christ appeared on the mountain in 
Galilee, others were present besides the eleven, for he mentions Joseph, also 
called Barsabas, and Matthias. It is, however, impossible to settle the mat¬ 
ter with absolute certainty. 


XIV. Christ Appears to the Apostles in Jerusalem 
on the Day of His Ascension 


Mark xv. 14 

14. At length he appeared to the 
eleven as they were at table: and he 
upbraided them with their incre¬ 
dulity and hardness of heart, be¬ 
cause they did not believe them who 
had seen him after he was risen 
again. 


Luke xxiv. 44 

44. And he said to them: These 
are written in the law of Moses, and 
while I was yet with you, and all 
things must needs be fulfilled, which 
are written in the law of Moses, and 
in the prophets, and in the psalms, 
concerning me. 


1 John xiv. 16 seqq. 2 T c or xv g 

3 e.g., Lyranus, Cajetan, Baronius, Estius, Corn, a Lap., Tirinus, Lamy. 

and Jansenius. 

4 Among Catholic writers who reject the identity is Comely, who says: 
parum recte nonnulli (!) illam intelligere volunt, quae Matth. xxviii. i 6 sq 
narratur. Knabenbauer holds it as res incerta. 




RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 347 


Mark xv. 15-18 

15. And he said to them: Go ye 
into the whole world, and preach 
the gospel to every creature. 

16. He that believeth and is bap¬ 
tized, shall be saved: but he that 
believeth not shall be condemned. 

17. And these signs shall follow 
them that believe: In my name they 
shall cast out devils: they shall speak 
with new tongues. 

18. They shall take up serpents; 
and if they shall drink any deadly 
thing, it shall not hurt them: they 
shall lay their hands upon the sick, 
and they shall recover. 


Luke xxiv. 45-49 

45. Then he opened their under¬ 
standing, that they might understand 
the scriptures. 

46. And he said to them: Thus 
it is written, and thus it behoved 
Christ to suffer, and to rise again 
from the dead the third day. 

47. And that penance and the 
remission of sins should be preached 
in his name unto all nations, begin¬ 
ning at Jerusalem. 

48. And you are witnesses of 
these things. 

49. And I send the promise of my 
Father upon you: but stay you in 
the city, till you be endued with 
power from on high. 


Chronological and harmonistic difficulties. Ever since the time of St. 
Augustine opinions have been divided as to the place that this episode 
should occupy in the history of our Lord’s presence on earth after His res¬ 
urrection. There are also divergent opinions regarding the whole passage 
in St. Mark; some think that the evangelist is speaking of one occurrence, 
others believe him to be describing two distinct events. Some commenta¬ 
tors, both ancient and modern, consider Mark xvi. 14 to be parallel either 
with Luke xiv. 36-43 and John xx. 19-23 or with John xx. 24-29. Accord¬ 
ing to the second of these two theories, Mark xvi. 14 refers to Christ’s ap¬ 
pearance on the octave day of the resurrection, when Thomas was present; 1 
according to the first, St. Mark is referring to our Lord’s appearance late 
in the evening of Easter Sunday. 2 A serious difficulty presents itself when 
we take Mark xvi. 14 as parallel with Luke xxiv. 36-43 and John xx. 19-23. 
St. Mark says that Jesus appeared to the eleven, whereas St. John tells us 
that Thomas was absent when our Lord appeared on Easter Sunday. Some 
commentators try to remove the difficulty by assuming that the apostles 
were called collectively “ the Eleven,” although they may not all have been 
present on any given occasion. 3 This is true of the expression “the 
Twelve,” but not of “the eleven.” By using the latter term instead of the 
former, the evangelists showed plainly that they were alluding to the actual 
number of members in the apostolic band. St. Augustine discussed this 
passage very thoroughly,* and admits that it would be an arbitrary assump¬ 
tion to think that “ the eleven ” denoted the apostles in a general way, 
without reference to their precise number. Several commentators consider 
Mark xvi. 15-18 parallel to Matthew xxviii. 16-20. From the exegetical 
standpoint there is no objection to believing that two distinct events are re¬ 
corded in Mark xvi. 14-18; in fact, the brief and condensed statement with 
which this gospel concludes may be taken as supporting this theory, and 
yet, to divide the narrative into two parts does not seem a satisfactory solu- 


1 Maid., Jansenius (jun.) : longe verius est, Marcum respicers eandem 

apparitionem quam narrant Luc. xxiv. 36; Joann, xx. 19, sqq. 

3 Corn, a Lap., Knabenbauer: Satis habet probabilitatis. 

* Laurent and Knabenb. * De cons, evang. 3, 75, 76. 





348 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

tion of the difficulty. The same remark applies to the attempt to treat 
Mark xiv. 15-18 (or 14-18) and Matthew xxvi. 16-20 as parallel passages. 
It appears better to take Mark xvi. 14-18 as one consecutive narrative, re¬ 
cording what took place on the day of our Lord’s ascension, when He ap¬ 
peared for the last time to the apostles in Jerusalem. This agrees with the 
opinion expressed by St. Augustine, 1 St. Gregory the Great, 2 St. Bede, 8 Pa- 
trizi, 4 Comely, 5 and Hengstenberg (who, however, excepts Mark xvi. 14), 
and it gains support from the word varepov, which introduces the whole sec¬ 
tion, and is rendered accurately by novissime (i.e., postremo ) in the Vul¬ 
gate translation.® Thus the evangelist tells us that this was our Lord’s last 
appearance, and his manner of connecting the Ascension with this narrative 7 
implies that in all probability it occurred immediately after this appearance, 
while Christ’s discourse, as recorded by St. Mark, apparently was pro¬ 
nounced after that recorded by St. Matthew. In St. Mark’s account the 
command to baptize is taken for granted, as already issued, while stress 
is laid upon the necessity of carrying out with exactitude the instruction 
previously given. In St. Matthew’s gospel we read that Jesus promised to 
abide with the apostles even to the consummation of the world, whereas in 
St. Mark’s we read of the wonderful results that their faith will produce in 
believers. 

Elucidation of the text. When Jesus appeared for the last 
time to the apostles, they were seated at table. This last ap¬ 
pearance took place at Jerusalem on the day of our Lord’s as¬ 
cension, and there is good reason for supposing that the apostles 
were assembled in the cenaculum. Jesus began by rebuking 
them for their incredulity and for refusing to believe persons 
who had been eyewitnesses of His resurrection. That Christ 
should thus rebuke the apostles during the last moments of His 
sojourn on earth seems strange, but nevertheless the reproof 
should fill us with confidence. We, who live at a later period 
and cannot see our risen Saviour with our bodily eyes, may 
learn from this episode that even the apostles attained to full 
faith in the Resurrection only with difficulty, and that our Lord 
did everything in His power to convince them of its reality, so 
that we may safely accept their testimony with regard to it. 


1 /. r. 

2 Horn. 29 in evang. 

8 Ad Marc. xvi. 14. 

4 Comm, ad Marc. xvi. 14. 

5 Curs. sacr. script. 3, 302.. 

6 It appears rash to assert that forepov invariably means posted, after¬ 
wards, and never postremo, finally. It is hardly possible to deny that varepov 
may mean postremo in Matthew xxi. 37; xxv. 11-xxvi. 60. It is interesting 
to notice that in all these places the Vulgate reads novissime, as it does in 
Mark xvi. 14, whereas elsewh.ere (Matthew iv. 2; xxi. 29, 32; John xiii. 36) 
tiarepov is rendered by posted. 

7 Mark xvi. 19. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 


349 


Our Saviour then repeated the command that He had already 
given, and ordered them to preach the gospel to every creature, 
enumerating, as a reason for the command, the wonderful 
effects of faith. His words “ He that believeth and is baptized, 
shall be saved ” contain a reference to the previous commission 
to baptize, and at the same time indicate the necessity of bap¬ 
tism, since faith and baptism are essential to salvation. The 
context shows that Jesus had only adults in view when He 
spoke, for they, being capable of understanding the gospel, must 
have faith before they can receive baptism. We cannot, how¬ 
ever, infer from this passage that none should be baptized who 
have not reached years of discretion. Because our Lord men¬ 
tioned the conditions absolutely necessary to salvation, we must 
not assume that there are not additional conditions imposed 
upon those who would attain it. As we saw in the previous 
section, the observance of God’s commandments, i.e., a life in 
harmony with the Christian religion, is no less essential to sal¬ 
vation than are faith and baptism:: tunc veraciter fideles sumus, 
cum, quod verbis promittimus, operibus complemus . 1 On the 
other hand, those who refuse to believe are threatened with 
eternal damnation. 

On the mountain in Galilee Jesus encouraged the apostles to 
carry out His commission by promising to abide with them for¬ 
ever ; now He gave another source for encouragement by point¬ 
ing out the wonderful results to be produced by the gospel that 
they were to preach, and men were to receive. When the 
apostles went forth on their first missionary journey, 2 they were 
endowed with power to work miracles, in order that thus they 
might be able to prove themselves divinely commissioned, and 
so be in a better position to win the hearts of men to the truth 
which they were to preach. Now they were to equip the faith¬ 
ful with peculiar graces, as a visible evidence of the divinity of 
the truth that they had accepted with the faith. There was 
nothing new in this promise, as, during His ministry in Galilee, 
our Lord had already spoken of the all-powerful effects of 
faith. 3 He promised that the faithful should work miracles “ in 
His name.” This expression has been interpreted in various 


1 St. Greg, the Great, Horn. 29 in evang. 

2 Matthew x. 1. 3 Matthew xvii. 19. 



35Q 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


ways; some think that it refers to working miracles by the invo¬ 
cation and utterance of the name of Christ, but this explanation 
is quite inadequate. The true sense of the passage seems to be 
that firm faith in Christ the Redeemer, and especially in His 
miraculous powers, and also undoubting confidence that this 
faith confers miraculous powers upon His disciples, will actually 
enable men to work miracles. Such faith would naturally find 
expression in the invocation and utterance of the name of Jesus. 

By way of illustration, our Lord proceeded to mention five 
kinds of miracles that the faithful would be able to work, viz., 
casting out devils, speaking with new tongues, taking up ser¬ 
pents with impunity, drinking poison without fatal results, and 
curing the sick by the laying on of hands. 

In the Acts of the Apostles there are instances of the first and 
last of these miracles. 1 

The promise that the faithful should speak with new tongues was fulfilled 
at Pentecost, 2 * and there is abundant evidence to show that in the apostolic 
age the faithful possessed this gift of the Holy Ghost. 8 When St. Paul 
suffered no injury from the bite of a viper 4 * the third promise was literally 
fulfilled; but probably both here and when our Lord said that He had given 
His disciples power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, 6 we ought not to 
limit ourselves to the literal meaning, but should understand the word 
“ serpents ” as a symbolical term denoting the powers of evil and the dan¬ 
gers arising therefrom. This symbolical interpretation finds justification 
in Holy Scripture 6 as well as in the works of the earliest Giristian writers 
and in ancient art. 7 Christ’s words are to be understood as a promise that 
the devil will have no power at all over the faithful, who will be able not 
only to resist him, but also to protect and guard their fellow creatures 
against his assaults. In support of this symbolical interpretation we may 
point out that our Saviour, in speaking of the miracles which the faithful 
should work in His name, called them signs. Now this word is especially 
used to designate miracles in which the outward and visible action is a 
symbol of some higher, supernatural truth. Our Lord Himself assigned a 
symbolical meaning of this kind to a miracle, when He declared that, by 
miraculously multiplying the loaves of bread, He was recognized by God 
the Father as the Giver of the true bread from heaven. According to tra¬ 
dition our Lord’s promise that the faithful should be able to drink poison 
with impunity was also fulfilled in the time of the apostles. St. Augustin e 8 
and St. Isidore of Seville 9 both tell us that a cup of poisoned wine was 


1 For instance: iii. 6, v. 16, viii. 7, 8. 

2 Acts ii. i. 

* Acts x. 46; xix. 6; 1 Cor. xiv. 1. 

4 Luke x. iq. 

6 Gen. iii. 1; Apoc. xii. 9; xx. 2. 

* Melito of Sardes: serpentes ( sc . sunt ) diaboli vel homines impii. 

7 Compare John vi. 27. 

8 Soliloq. 22. 9 De ortu et obitu patrum . . . c. 74. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 351 

once given to St. John, the Evangelist, who drank it unharmed. This 
apostle is frequently represented holding a chalice, which has often been 
understood to mean this cup of poison. 

Some commentators assign a different interpretation to Luke xxiv. 44- 
49, and think that it is the record of an instruction given by Christ on the 
evening of Easter Sunday, so that Luke xxiv. 39-49 is one connected para¬ 
graph. This theory derives a certain amount of support from the substance 
of the first part of the instruction, and particularly from verse 46, which 
seems to be closely connected with the conversation between our Lord and 
the two disciples on the way to Emmaus. The fact that the instruction is 
introduced by the words direr $4 is also supposed to indicate that verses 44- 
49 follow immediately upon verses 36-43 in order of time. Schanz, Knaben- 
bauer, and Keil, however, rightly point out that elsewhere elirev de does not 
indicate any connection in time with what has gone before, and therefore 
from the linguistic point of view it is quite possible to assume a consider¬ 
able interval between verse 43 and verse 44. It seems better to follow Tisch- 
endorf and Westcott-Hort, who in their text-editions of St. Luke’s gospel 
print xxiv. 44-49 as a distinct paragraph, unconnected with the preceding 
section. It should be regarded as a discourse pronounced by our Saviour 
just before His ascension, and not as the evangelist’s summary of all the in¬ 
structions, commissions, and promises given by our Lord during the time 
between His resurrection and ascension. 

The apostle9 were thoroughly convinced of the truth of their 
Master’s resurrection, but the subject had to be brought forward 
once more, because they were to make known to the world the 
doctrine of the crucified Redeemer, which doctrine was a 
stumbling-block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. 1 
Our Saviour reminded the apostles how often He had spoken 
of His approaching Passion, Death, and Resurrection, and had 
pointed out that, in accordance with the divine scheme for men’s 
salvation revealed in the Old Testament, it was necessary for 
Him to die and then to rise in glory. 2 The Jews divided the 
canonical books of the Old Testament into three classes, viz., 
the books of Moses (Thora), those of the prophets (Nebiim), 
and those of other sacred writers (Ketubim). Of the last class 
the book of Psalms was frequently regarded as the representa¬ 
tive, because it contains most references to the Messiah. We see 
in verse 44 that our Lord adopted this classification. He used 
the words “while I was yet with you” to designate the time 
before the Passion, when He was in constant intercourse with 
the apostles, whereas after the Resurrection He appeared only 
for short periods. He alluded to the fact that the prophets had 
foretold, and types had foreshadowed, His Passion and His 


1 1 Cor. i. 23. 


3 Matthew xvi. 21; xvii. 21 ; xx. 17; xxvi. 56. 



352 


THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 


Glory, and reminded the apostles that He had Himself often 
spoken on these subjects, but He did more than this, for “ He 
opened their understanding, that they might understand the 
scriptures,” and enlightened their minds by His grace, nam 
scripturarum intelligentia est donum Spiritus sancti . 1 He told 
them explicitly why He bestowed on them this light of under¬ 
standing ; it was in order that (i) they might recognize in His 
passion and resurrection a fulfillment of prophecy; (2) that 
they might know what duty was laid upon them according to 
Holy Scripture, for the salvation of all nations, and (3) that 
they might perceive with certainty where, in accordance with 
Holy Scripture, their activity was to begin, and at what point 
they were to devote themselves to the conversion of the Gentiles. 

The task which, according to the Scriptures, the apostles had 
to perform was described by Christ thus: penance and the 
remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all 
nations. We have already seen that the Name of Christ, or 
Name of Jesus, implied all that Christ is to men, and all that 
they should recognize Him to be. The context of this particular 
passage shows that the Name of Jesus refers here to His Pas¬ 
sion, Death, and Resurrection, whereby He revealed Himself 
as the Redeemer of mankind, and paid the ransom. Viewed in 
this light the expression “ to preach penance and the remission 
of sins in His name” is seen to be equivalent to (1) a call to 
the nations to do penance, with reference to Christ as their 
Redeemer and to His work of Redemption; (2) a proclamation 
of the glad tidings that they, by means of true penance and loyal 
adherence to Christ, might obtain 1 forgiveness of sins as a fruit 
of His grace of redemption. This is why at Pentecost St. Peter 
called upon his hearers to do penance and be baptized in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and added, “ And 
you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” 2 Salvation was 
to be preached first in Jerusalem, for Isaias had said, “ The law 
shall come forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from 
Jerusalem.” 3 As the Passion and Resurrection of Christ were 
of fundamental importance in the work of salvation, the apostles 
were specially commissioned to bear testimony to them. 

Our Lord concluded His instruction by promising the Holy 


1 Jansenius, ad loc. 


2 Acts ii. 38. 


8 Isa. ii. 3. 



RESURRECTION AND MANIFESTATIONS 353 


Spirit. He called the Holy Spirit “ the promise of my Father ” 
because God the Father had repeatedly promised through the 
prophets that the Holy Ghost should be outpoured when the 
Messiah came. 1 Finally, the apostles were charged to remain in 
Jerusalem until they had received the Holy Ghost, who would 
endue them with power from on high. 


1 Compare Joel ii. 28; Isa. xlv. 3-5. 



SECTION II 

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST INTO HEAVEN 


Mark xvi. 19, 20 

19. And the Lord Jesus, after he 
had spoken to them, was taken up 
into heaven, and sitteth on the right 
hand of God. 

20. But they going forth, preached 

everywhere: the Lord working 

withal, and confirming the word 
with signs that followed. 

Luke xxiv. 50-53 

50. And he led them out as far as 
Bethania: and lifting up his hands, 
he blessed them. 

51. And it came to pass, whilst he 
blessed them, he departed from 
them, and was carried up to heaven. 

52. And they adoring went back 
into Jerusalem with great joy. 

53. And they were always in the 
temple, praising and blessing God. 
Amen. 


Acts i. 9-12 

9. And when he had said these 
things, while they looked on, he was 
raised up: and a cloud received him 
out of their sight. 

10. And while they were behold¬ 
ing him going up to heaven, behold 
two men stood by them in white 
garments. 

11. Who also said: Ye men of 
Galilee, why stand you looking up to 
heaven? This Jesus who is taken 
up from you into heaven, shall so 
come, as you have seen him going 
into heaven. 

12. Then they returned to Jerusa¬ 
lem, from the mount that is called 
Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, 
within a sabbath day’s journey. 


From a definite statement in the Acts of the Apostles we learn 
that our Lord remained on earth forty days after His resurrec¬ 
tion, and that during this time He instructed the apostles more 
fully regarding the nature and purpose of the Messianic king¬ 
dom, and provided them with the authority and powers that 
they required for continuing His work on earth. When the 
forty days had elapsed, He returned to heaven, whence He had 
come at His Father’s bidding to accomplish the salvation of 
mankind. 


A brief account of the Ascension is given by St. Mark, and also by St. 
Luke in his gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. During His public 
ministry our Saviour had frequently alluded to His Ascension, 1 and St. 
Peter and St. Paul refer to it in many places. 2 

1 John vi. 63; xx. 17. 

2 Peter, in Acts ii. 33; iii. 21; 1 Peter iii. 22; Paul in Ephes. i. 20; ii. 6; 
iv. 9; Col. iii. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Hebr. iv. 14; ix. 24. 




THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST INTO HEAVEN 355 

The Ascension is universally believed to have taken place on a Thursday, 
because this is the fortieth day after Easter. In the past, some arguments 
in favor of Saturday have been put forward by writers who apparently in¬ 
cluded neither Easter Sunday nor the actual day of the Ascension in their 
reckoning. The day has been observed as a festival from the earliest times. 
The first definite evidence of this fact occurs in the Apostolic Constitutions, 
in which the day of Christ’s Ascension is described as an independent festi¬ 
val, observed forty days after the Resurrection, on the fifth day of the week 
(Thursday). 1 Servile work was forbidden, because “the Ascension is a 
holy day marking the completion of the economy of salvation ” (Sia rd irepas 
rrjs Kara xp l <ttov olicovofxias) 2 In this sense St. John Chrysostom calls As¬ 
cension Day “h C7 runo^oixevr]. Some think that in the 43rd canon of the Synod 
at Elvira there is evidence to show that in 306 a.d., when this synod was 
held, Ascension Day was already observed as a festival. St. Augustine says 
that the observance of the festival is based upon apostolic tradition; it is, 
however, impossible to prove that it was observed with an octave earlier 
than the fifteenth century. 

The Ascension took place from Mount Olivet, which is situ¬ 
ated about three quarters of a mile to the east of Jerusalem. 
St. Luke seems to say that it occurred at Bethany, which is on 
the eastern slope of the hill, and nearly two miles from Jerusa¬ 
lem, 3 but the evangelist’s words need not be interpreted to mean 
that Jesus and His disciples actually reached Bethany; He may 
have led them along the road from Jerusalem in the direction 
of Bethany. A footpath to Bethany passes the spot whence 
Jesus is believed to have ascended. 

According to a tradition dating back to the beginning of the fourth cen¬ 
tury, our Lord ascended from the middle peak of Mount Olivet, which is 
about 2500 feet in height. Eusebius states 4 * that St. Helena erected a mag¬ 
nificent basilica on the spot, the Church of the Ascension, which has been 
destroyed and rebuilt several times. At the present day its site is marked 
by a small octagonal chapel, belonging to the Moslems, although Christians 
are occasionally permitted to worship there. 6 At a very early period some 
religious houses stood near the church, but these have completely disap¬ 
peared. To the east of the chapel is a little village consisting of a few 
wretched huts. Some commentators 8 think that Jesus went with His dis¬ 
ciples from Jerusalem to Bethany because He wished to visit Lazarus and 
his sisters once more, and that thence He went to the summit of Mount 
Olivet, in order to ascend into heaven. 

St. Luke alone records the circumstances of the Ascension, 
and his account is very brief. Immediately before His de¬ 
parture Jesus lifted up His hands and blessed the apostles. 
Probably He stretched out His hands over them while He pro- 

1 Const. Apost. 5, 19. 2 Const - Apost. 8, 33. 

3 John xi. 18. 4 Vita Const. 3, 41-43. 

6 Kirchenlexikon, 6, 1. 8 e.g., Corn, a Lap., Menochius, and Jansenius. 




356 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

nounced a blessing. Many commentators think that He made 
the Sign of the Cross over them. St. Jerome seems to take this 
view, for in commenting on the words in Isaias lxvi. 19, et 
ponam in eis signum, he says: hoc J inquit, nobis ad Patrem as- 
cendens Dominus reliquit sive in nostris frontibus posuit. Al¬ 
though it is uncertain how our Lord blessed His disciples, there 
can be no doubt that the use of the Sign of the Cross dates from 
the time of the apostles. The words pronounced by Christ have 
not been preserved, but we can easily imagine that He wished 
God’s blessing to rest upon His disciples in their apostolic office, 
now that He Himself was leaving them. Since even the blessings 
imparted by the apostles were efficacious, 1 far more so must have 
been the last blessing uttered by their divine Master. 

While Jesus blessed His disciples, He departed from them, not 
vanishing suddenly as He had done on previous occasions, but 
gradually rising upwards, so that they could watch His de¬ 
parture from this world. After some time a cloud hid Plim 
from their gaze. They were permitted thus to witness His As¬ 
cension, in order that they might be able to bear testimony to 
it, as well as to the resurrection of the Messiah. Christ Himself 
accomplished His ascent into heaven by means primarily of the 
divine power which He possessed as God, and also in virtue of the 
agility proper to the glorified human body. 2 Hence we say in the 
Apostle’s Creed that He “ ascendit” in caelum. The evangel¬ 
ists speak of His being “ taken ” or “ raised ” up into heaven, 
but this expression is in harmony with Biblical usage, which 
ascribes the works of omnipotence per appropriationem to God 
the Father. St. Mark says that our Saviour “ sitteth at the right 
hand of God.” This is a figurative phrase, borrowed from the 
Psalms; 3 St. Paul explains it as meaning that the God-Man, 
having risen in glory, shares in the Kingship of heaven, and 
exercises His divine power in governing the world. 4 

We may here refer shortly to a few questions that have been asked in 
connection with the Ascension. At what hour did it take place? In com¬ 
menting on Ps. liv. 18, “ Evening and morning and at noon I will speak and 
declare, and he shall hear my voice,” St. Augustine remarks vespere Domi¬ 
nus in cruce, mane in resurrectione, meridie in ascensione. Apparently, 
therefore, he believed the Ascension to have occurred at midday, and this is 
further suggested by the parallel between Christ and Adam; it was at noon 


1 Matthew x. 12, 13. 
3 Ps. cix. 1. 


2 Lyr.: proprio motu per dotem agilitatis. 

4 Cor. xv. 25. 



THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST INTO HEAVEN 357 

that Adam sinned, and thus closed the gates of heaven to mankind; 1 and 
at the same hour Christ reopened them by returning to heaven from the 
work of the Redemption. 

In answer to the question whether the Ascension was witnessed only by 
the apostles, or also by other disciples, we may notice that the evangelists 
mention no one but the apostles; many commentators, however, believe that 
other disciples, and especially Lazarus, his sisters, and other pious women, 
were present on Mount Olivet. 2 * Our Lord’s Ascension is termed the crown 
of all mysteries and the completion of His work of salvation.® It was an 
essential condition to the sending of the Holy Ghost to sanctify mankind; 4 
moreover, it revealed in visible form the effects of our redemption, because 
it is not only a sensible manifestation of the exaltation of the God-Man, but 
is the supreme exaltation of human nature in general; finally, it is a guaran¬ 
tee that our Lord will some day return in glory. 

By means of His Ascension Christ gave the plainest possible 
proof of His divinity, for which reason the apostles at once 
adored Him. Then, suddenly they beheld standing before them 
two angels in human form, wearing white garments. These 
angels assured them that the same Jesus, whose ascent into 
heaven they had just witnessed, would come again in the same 
way, viz., in visible and majestic form. The angels directed the 
apostles to leave the place whence their Lord had ascended, and 
so, in conformity with the instructions they had already re¬ 
ceived, 5 they went back to Jerusalem with great joy, as St. Luke 
remarks. They rejoiced because the God-Man was glorified in 
His departure from this world; because now they had the guar¬ 
antee that the Holy Ghost would be sent to them, and, lastly, 
they understood that their Lord’s Ascension was the visible ex¬ 
pression of His triumph over all hostile powers. St. Luke goes 
on to say that the apostles, having returned to Jerusalem, “ were 
always in the Temple, praising and blessing God.” The evangel¬ 
ist is speaking of the time between the Ascension and the send¬ 
ing forth of the Holy Ghost, and there is no discrepancy between 
this statement and that which occurs in the Acts, i. 13, where 
we read that the apostles remained together in the cenaculum. 
No doubt, on their return from Mount Olivet, they decided to 
await the coming of the Holy Ghost in some place, familiar to 
them all, and this was probably the cenaculum; but at the regu¬ 
lar hours of prayer they betook themselves to the Temple. 


1 Gen. iii. 8. 

8 Of more recent writers, Laurent takes this view. 

8 Const. Apost. 7, 33; compare Kirchenlexikon 6, 1. 

4 Compare John vii. 39; xvi. 8. 5 Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4. 




358 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

St. Mark concludes his gospel with an allusion to the apostles’ 
activity at the time when he wrote; he says, “ they going forth 
preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and conform¬ 
ing the word with signs that followed.” Christ’s co-operation 
refers to the work of the Holy Ghost, whom He sent forth to 
supply the apostles, as He had promised, with words, wisdom, 
and strength, 1 and to make the hearts of men responsive to 
their preaching. 2 The miracles wrought by the apostles were 
not only a token of their divine mission, but gave support to the 
truth of the doctrines they taught. 

1 Luke xxi. 15. 2 Acts xvi. 14. 



WORKS TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS 
CHIEFLY BEEN MADE 


St. Ambrosius, Expositionis in Evang. sec. Lucam, libri X (Migne). 

St. Augustinus, De sermone Domini in monte secundum Matthaeum , libri duo 
(Venice, 1829). 

De consensu Evangelistarum, libri IV; Quaestionum Evangeliorum, libri II; 
In Joannis Evangelium tractatus CXXIV; Sermones de verbis Scrip - 
turae (Migne). 

St. Bede, Expositio in IV Evangelia (Migne). 

Belser, Joh., Einleitung in das Neue Testament; Das Evangelium des heil. 
Johannes; Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens , der Auferstehung und 
Himmelfahrt des Herrn (Freiburg, 1905). 

Bisping, Aug., Exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testamente (Mtinster, 1867- 
1869). 

Bleek, Fr., Synoptische Erkldrung der drei ersten Evangelien (Leipzig, 1862). 

Breen, A. E., A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels (Rochester, 1899- 
1903). 

Bynaeus, De Morte Jesu Christi (Amstelod., 1691). 

Calmet, Aug., Commentarius literalis in omnes libros N. T. (Wirceburgi, 1787). 

Camerlynck, A., and Coppieters, H., Evangeliorum sec. Matthaeum , Marcum et 
Lucam Synopsis (Brugge, 1910). 

Chrysostomus, St. Johannes, Homiliae in Act. A post.; Homiliae XC in 
Matthaeum; Homiliae LXXXVIII in Joannem (Migne). 

Cornelius a; Lapide, Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram (Parisiis, i860). 

Comely, R., S.J., Introductio specialis in singulos libros N. T. (Parisiis, 1886). 

Cyrilli, Alexandrini, In S. Joannis Evangelium (Oxonii, 1872). 

Deissmann, A., Licht vom Osten (Tubingen, 1909). 

Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah (London, 1883). 

Evangelia Apocrypha, edited by Tischendorf (Leipzig, 1853, 1876). 

Estius, Guil., Annotationes in praecipua ac dijfciliora S. Scripturae loca (Venetiis, 

1759). 

Eusebius, Kirchengeschichte (Leipzig, 1903). 

Flavius, Josephus, Opera omnia (Lipsiae, 1888). 

Fritzsche, C. F. A., Evangelium Marci recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis 
edidit (Lipsiae, 1830). 

Goldschmid, L., Der babylonische Talmud , mit Einschluss der Mischnah (Berlin, 
1897). 

St. Gregorius Magnus, Homiliae in Evangelia (Migne). 

Grimm, Joseph, Die Einkeit der tier Evangelien (Regensburg, 1868). 

Hamack, A., Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament; Neue Untersuchungen 
zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien 
(Leipzig, 1911)* 


360 THE PASSION AND GLORY OF CHRIST 

Hawkins, J. C., Horae synopticae. Contributions to the study of the synoptic 
problem (Oxford, 1909). 

Jansenius (Gandavensis) Corn, (sen.), Commentarii in Concordiam ac totam 
Historiam evangelicam (Lugduni, 1580). 

Jansenius (Iprensis) Corn, (jun.), Tetrateuchus sive Commentarius in S. Jesu 
Christi Evangelia (Lovanii, 1685). 

St. Jerome, De viris illustribus; Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Mat- 
thaeum (Migne). 

Kaulen, Fr., Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata (Freiburg, 1904). 

Keil, Karl Friedrich, Commentar iiber die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas 
(Leipzig, 1879). 

Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Matthaus (Leipzig, 1877). 

Klofutar, Leonhard, Commentarius in Evangelia S. Marci et S. Lucae (Labaci, 
1892). 

Klostermann, August, Das Markus-Evangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe fur 
die evangelische Geschichte (Gottingen, 1867). 

Knabenbauer, J., Commentarius in IV S. Evangelia (Parisiis, 1903-1907). 

Kortleitner, Fr., Archaeologiae Biblicae Summarium (Oeniponte, 1906). 

Lucas (Brugensis), Commentarius in S. IV Evangelia (Antverpiae, 1606). 

Lyranus, Nikolaus, Postilla super IV Evangelia (Mantuae, 1477). 

Le Camus, La vie de N. S. Jesus-Christ (Paris, 1883). 

Maldonatus, Joh., Commentarii in IV Evangelistas (Moguntiae, 1874). 

Menochius, J. St., Commentarii Totius Scripturae (Venetiis, 1758). 

Merx A., Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem dltesten bekannten Texte 
(Berlin, 1905). 

Meyer, H. A. W., Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament 
(Gottingen, 1901). 

Neumann, W., Qurn Dscheradi. Studien zu Mt. 8, 28; Mk. 5, 1; Lk. 8, 26, 37 
(Freiburg, 1894). 

Nosgen, C. F., Die Evangelien nach Matthaus , Markus und Lukas (Miinchen, 
1897). 

New Testament, the, in the Original Greek, edited by Westcott-Hort (Cam¬ 
bridge, 1881). 

Novum Testamentum D. N. J. Chr. latine sec. editionem s. Hieronymi. Ad 
codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit Joannes Wordsworth (Oxonii, 

1895)- 

Origenes, Commentarius in Matthaeum; Homiliae in Lucam (Migne). 

Patritius, Fr. X., In Marcum Commentarium cum duabus Appendicibus (Rome, 
1862). 

Ramsay, W. M., Was Christ bom at Bethlehem? A study on the credibility of 
St. Luke (London, 1905). 

Riezler, R., Das Evangelium Vnseres Herrn Jesus Christus nach Lukas (Brixen, 
1900). 

Schanz, Paul, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des hi. Matthaus (Freiburg, 1879). 

Commentar iiber das Evangelium des heiligen Markus (Freiburg, 1881). 

Commentar iiber das Evangelium des heil. Lucas (Tubingen, 1883). 

Schegg, P., Evangelium nach Lucas (Miinchen, 1861). 

Evangelium nach Markus (Miinchen, 1870). 

Evangelium nach Matthaus (Miinchen, 1856-58). 


WORKS OF REFERENCE 


361 


Schegg-Wirthmiiller, Biblische Archdologie (Freiburg, 1886-1888). 

Theophylactus, Enarratio in IV Evangelia (Migne). 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Matth. et Joannem; Catena aurea; Summa 
Theol. (Migne). 

Tirinus, J., Commentarius in S. Scripturam (Augustae Vind., 1771). 

Toletus, F., Commentarii in S. Evang. sec. Lucam (Coloniae Agripp., 1611). 

Weiss, Bernhard, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch iiber die Evangelien des Markus 
und Lukas (G&ttingen, 1885). 

Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Berlin, 1889). 

Das Matthaus-Evangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen (Halle, 1876). 

Das Matthaus-Evangelium (Gottingen, 1898). 

Wieseler, K., Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien (Hamburg, 1843). 

Wiinsche, Aug., Neue Beitrdge zur Erlduterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und 
Midrasch (Gottingen, 1878). 

Zahn, Th., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig, 1906-07); Das Evan¬ 
gelium des Johannes (Leipzig, 1908); Das Evangelium des Matthaus 
(Leipzig, 1910). 


ABBREVIATIONS MOST FREQUENTLY USED IN QUOTATIONS. 

Ant. = Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. 

Aug. Tr. = St. A ugustini in Joannis Evangelium Tractatus cxxiv. 

B. T. = Bellum Judaicum of Flavius Josephus. 

Cyr. = Cyrilli Alexandrini. 

Est. = Estius Annotationes. 

Luc. Brug. = Francisci Lucae Brugensis Commentarius. 

Lyr. = Lyranus, Postilla. 

Pesch. = Peschitto. 

Tir. = Tirini, Commentarius. 

Tisch. = Novum Testamentum graece , ed. by Tischendorf. 

W.-H. = The New Testament in the Original Greek, edited by Westcott and 
Hort. 

Manuscripts: K ( Codex Sinaiticus, 4th cent.); A ( Alexandrinus , 5th cent.); 
B. ( Vaticanus, 4th cent.); C (Ephraemi rescriptus , 5th cent.); D (Bezae , 6th cent.); 
E (Basileensis , 8th cent.); F ( Boreelianus ); G and H ( Seidelianus ); K ( Cyprius ); 
L (Parisiensis, Stephani octavus ); N ( Purpureus , 6th cent.); U ( Venetus Mar- 
cianus , Nanianus); W a (St. Gall); X (Monacensis ); T {Oxoniensis-Petropoli- 
tanus); A (Sangallensis ); A ( Oxoniensis). 



INDEX 


Adoration of the Lord by the Apostles, 357. 

Agony of Jesus, 104 seqq. 

Alabastron, 12. 

Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene, 201. 

Alphaeus, see Klopas. 

Amwas, not identical with the scriptural Emmaus, 300. 

Angel, apparition of, in Gethsemani; who of the angels he was, at what stage 
in the agony of Jesus, in what consisted the strengthening of Jesus by 
the angel, why strength was administered by an angel, no seqq. 
Angels appearing to the women at the sepulchre, his message, 277 seqq. 
appearing immediately after the resurrection of Christ, 277 seqq. 
appearing to Mary Magdalen, 285 seqq. 
witnesses for the Ascension and second coming of Christ, 357. 

Annas, high priest and father-in-law of Caiphas, 127 seqq. 
his residence, 128. 

why Jesus was first taken to him, and whether examined by him, 128. 
Anointing of Jesus in Bethany, 9 seqq. 

Antipas, see Herod. 

Antonia, castle on the Temple hill, where the Roman procurators dwelt during 
their stay in Jerusalem, its location, 158. 
in its forecourt the discussion of Pilate with the Jews about Jesus took 
place, 158 seqq. 

Jesus scourged there, 181. 

in its forecourt Jesus was mocked and abused by the soldiers, 184. 
from here started the way of the cross, 198. 

Apostles, murmuring about the anointing of Jesus, 13. 

as a body, celebrated the Pasch only once with the Lord, 43. 
ordained as priests at the Last Supper, 61. 
their strife about precedence, 77. 

as leaders in the Church, they must combine humility with self-sacrificing 
service for the welfare of the faithful, 78. 
their judicial office at the Last Judgment, 82 seqq. 

the prediction of their taking scandal, and wherein the scandal consisted, 93. 
their struggle in the world, 99. 
they must pray and watch, 110. 
their flight, 123. 

whether they were near the cross of Jesus, 243. 

bidden by an angel and by Christ Himself to go to Galilee, 293 seqq. 

receive the power to forgive sins, 311. 

equipped with Apostolic authority, 338 seqq. 


INDEX 


364 

Jesus reveals to them the meaning of the Scriptures, instructs them about 
their scriptural task and about the course of their activity, 348 seqq. 
witnesses of the Ascension, 357. 

Apparitions of Jesus, the Gospels record nine, of the risen Lord; their order, 
and those present, 267 seqq. 

Ascension, the, 354 seqq. 

Azymes, see Unleavened Bread. 

Baptism, its institution, 342 seqq. 

Barabbas, the name and its meaning, 176. 

Bethany, 11. 

Blasphemy, Jesus accused of, 137 seqq., 190. 

Blessing of the bread before the consecration, 52. 

of the Apostles before the Ascension, 355. 

Blood from the side of Jesus, see Wound. 

Bloody sweat of Jesus in Gethsemani, no seqq. 

Breaking of the bread, Jesus recognized by the, 306. 

Breathing upon the Apostles, our Lord’s, 312. 

Brethren, the Apostles called the brethren of Jesus, 290. 

of Peter are the other Apostles and the faithful in general, 91, 335. 

Burial of Jesus, the hour, the participants, preparation of the Body, burial 
place, the women present and helping, 252 seqq. (see also Graves and 
Sepulchre). 

Caiphas, his name, his term of office, his character, 128. 

declares Jesus to be a blasphemer, and rent his garment, 138. 

Calvary, see Golgotha. 

Cedron, name, origin, course, and length of the brook, 106. 

Cenaculum, the place of the Last Supper, its situation and subsequent history, 36. 
Centurion, confesses Jesus to be the son of God, 241 (see also Longinus). 
Cesarea, residence of the procurators, 150. 

Chagigah, see Peace Offering. 

Charoset, a kind of sweetmeat at the Jewish Paschal supper, 38. 

Chuz(h)a, King’s steward and husband of Johanna, 278. 

Cleophas, various forms of the name, 299. 

one of the disciples who went to Emmaus, 299. 

Clouds, their symbolical significance in the Old Testament, the coming of Christ 
on the clouds of Heaven, 137. 

Cohort, Roman, 117, 184. 

Crown of Thoms, of Jesus, 185. 

Jesus probably bore it on the way of the cross, 200; and even on the cross, 217 
Crucifixion, as a mode of execution, 211. 

of Christ, the form and size of the cross, whether Christ carried the whole 
cross, nailing Christ to the cross, 212 seqq. 
hour of the crucifixion of Christ, 224. 

death on the cross was usually very slow; since when and under what con¬ 
dition those crucified were allowed to be buried by their relations, 243 
seqq. 


INDEX 365 

Crurifragium, the breaking of the bones, 244. 

Cyrene, Simon of, 201. 

Darkness at the crucifixion of our Lord, its beginning, extent, and symbolical 
meaning, 224. 
power of, 123. 

Draught, the miraculous, its symbolical meaning and special relation to Peter’s 
office, 323 seqq. 

Dream of Pilate’s wife, its nature and significance, 176. 

Earthquake, upon the death of Jesus, how far it extended, what it signified, 
238 seqq. 

at the resurrection of Christ, 277. 

Emmaus, the name, various opinions about its situation; the disciples who went 
there, 298 seqq. 

Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the day of the, 4. 

Epiclesis, 56. 

Eucharist, the Holy, see Last Supper. 

Faith and Love, the necessary qualities of the pastor of souls, 329 seqq. (see also 
Peter). 

Fish, as symbol, 327. 

Flock, the, of Christ, entrusted to Peter, 333 seqq. 

Forsakenness of Christ on the cross, in what it consisted, 231. 

Friend of Cesar, 193. 

Gabbatha, see Lithostrotos. 

Galilee, why the risen Lord ordered the Apostles to go to, 280 seqq. 
the risen Lord appeared there twice, 320 seqq. 

Peter there appointed as supreme shepherd, 320 seqq. 

The Apostles received there the apostolic power, 338 seqq. 

Gallicinium, 97, 144. 

Gazith, the legal meeting place for the Sanhedrin, 7, 133. 

Genesareth, lake of, 321 (see also Tiberias). 

Gethsemani, its situation, its present condition, 107. 

Ghost, the Holy, the Apostles receiving the same on the day of the Resurrection, 
312 seqq. 

relation of this communication of the Holy Ghost to the descent of the Holy 
Ghost on Pentecost, 312 seqq. 

Glorification, not a natural process but the work of divine power, 301 (see also 
Qualities of the Glorified Body). 

Golgotha, 204. 

Graves of the Jews, place and form of the grave of Jesus, 257 seqq. (see also 
Sepulchre). 

Haceldama, its situation, its present condition, 154. 

Haggadah, 38 seqq. 

Hallel, in the Jewish Paschal rite, 39 seqq. 


INDEX 


366 

Hebdomada, major , vet sancta, 36 . 

Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, his character; his death; where he resided; 

why Jesus was sent to him; he examines and mocks Jesus, 168 seqq. 

High Priests, see Sanhedrists. 

Humility, its necessity for the apostolic office, 79. 

Hyssop, 212. 

Inscription on the cross of Christ, see Titulus. 

James the Less, son of Mary and of Alphaeus, 243. 

James, son of Zebedee, 243. 

Jesus Christ, went voluntarily to His death, 5, 122. 

explains the anointing in Bethany to be a preparation for the burial of His 
body, 14 seqq. 

His command to prepare the Paschal meal, 27. 

why He desired to eat the Pasch with the disciples, 42 seqq. 

the words He used for consecration, 55. 

did He take part in the Eucharistic meal? 60. 

why He, who was omniscient, selected Judas to be an apostle, 67. 

the thought of the treachery of Judas deeply moved Him, 67 seqq. 

instructed the Apostles about their task, and the reward for their loyalty, 78. 

why He particularly prayed for Peter, 83 seqq. 

why He predicted the scandal taken by the Apostles, 93 seqq. 

took part on the way to the Mount of Olives in the singing of hymns, 106. 

His petition that the chalice of suffering be taken away, 109 seqq. 

strengthened by an angel, and why strength was administered by an angel, 111 

His bloody sweat, 112. 

how was mental suffering and agony possible in the God-man, and the cir¬ 
cumstances that made them so intense, 113 seqq. 
the manifestation of His divine power overcame all human resistance, 119. 
declared His deliverance to His enemies to be the fulfillment of prophecy, 122. 
His testimony before Annas; His statement that He is the son of God, 
126 seqq. 

His prediction of His coming for judgment, 136 seqq. 

His merciful glance at Peter, 144. 

valued at 30 shekels, according to prophecy, 155. 

accused of being a dangerous agitator, the malice of this accusation, 167. 

His testimony before Pilate about the origin and form of His realm, about 
His royal dignity, and His work as the Messiah, 164. 

His silence before Herod, 170. 

His innocence repeatedly proclaimed by Pilate, 167, 174 seqq. t 179,193 seqq. 
heavenly testimony to His innocence, 176. 

His testimony before Pilate about Pilate's power over Him, 192. 
at what hour of the day He was condemned to death, 194. 
was He judged according to the Roman or Jewish law? 196. 
at what hour of the day He started on the way of the cross, 199 seqq. 
at what hour He was crucified, 224. 

entrusts His mother to John’s care, thus teaching the duties of parents, 230, 


INDEX 


3 6 7 


taunted on the cross, 220, 232 seqq. 
the testimony of the centurion, 241. 

from the wound in the side proceeded the Sacraments and the Church, 247 
seqq. 

His resurrection, 267 seqq. 

bids the Apostle go to Galilee, 293 seqq. 

not recognized by the disciples on the way to Emmaus, 299 seqq. 
gives to the disciples in Emmaus Eucharistic bread, 306. 
how He could appear and disappear in spite of locked doors, 307, 309 (see 
also Qualities of the Glorified Body), 
how is the partaking of food by the Glorified Saviour to be explained, 311. 
His reprimand and instruction of the' Apostles on the occasion of His last 
apparition immediately before the Ascension, 348. 

John, Apostle and Evangelist, receives the order to prepare the Pasch, 26. 
at the Last Supper, asks who is the traitor, 71. 

Jesus entrusts to him His mother, 230. 

His testimony about the flow of blood and water from the wound in the side 
of Jesus, 247. 

hurries with Peter to the grave, and believes in the Resurrection because he 
finds in the grave everything in order, 281 seqq. 
at the draught of fishes is the first to recognize Jesus, 323 seqq. 
why he and not Peter is called the Beloved Disciple, 332 seqq. 

Joseph of Arimathea, 254. 

Judas Iscariot, denounces the anointing of Jesus as wasteful, 13. 

form and etymology of the name Iscariot, his agreement with the Sanhedrin, 
the circumstances that combined in making him a traitor, 16. 
the announcement of his treachery; Satan enters into him, 67 seqq. 
did he leave the Supper Room before the celebration of the Holy Eucharist? 
73 - 

betrays the Master with a kiss, 118. 

his end, his remorse; how is his action after the condemnation of Christ to 
be explained? 151 seqq. 

Judea becomes a Roman province, 150. 

Judicial procedure, Jewish, see Sanhedrin. 

Roman, 158 seqq. 

Kingdom of Heaven, why the Messianic Kingdom is the, 164 seqq. 
relation of this expression to the vita aeterna of St. John, 164 seqq. 

Klopas-Alphaeus, see Cleophas. 

Lambs, sheep, to be shepherded by Peter, see Sheep. 

Last Supper, the, celebrated simultaneously with the Pasch of the Jews, on 
the evening of the 14th Nisan, which in the year of the Sacred Passion 
was a Thursday, 25 seqq. 

the institution of the Holy Eucharist took place after the Paschal meal, 
in two actions immediately following each other, and took the place of 
the third liturgical Paschal cup, 50 seqq. 
relation to each other of the records of the institution, 5 2 * 


INDEX 


368 

relation of its record in the Vulgate to the Greek text, 52. 
was at the same time sacrificial action and sacrificial meal, 57. 
the words of the institution were, and are, the words of consecration, 55. 
Our Saviour did not take part in the Eucharistic meal, 60 seqq. 
relation of the liturgical words of consecration to the words of the institu¬ 
tion, 63. 

Lazarus, guest at the meal in Bethany, 12. 

Legions, the twelve heavenly, at the disposition of Jesus, 122. 

Liberation of a prisoner on the Pasch, 175. 

Lithostrotos, meaning of the name; where it was situated, 194. 

Longinus, the soldier who made the wound in the side of Jesus, 242. 

Mary, the mother of Jesus, follows Jesus to Golgotha, 202. 
at the foot of the cross, is entrusted by Jesus to John, 230. 
reputed to have attended the burial, 258. 
whether the risen Lord appeared to her, 271. 

Mary Magdalen at the foot of the cross, 228. 
attended the burial of Jesus, 258. 

buys spices on the evening of the Sabbath, and proceeds on the morning of 
Easter Sunday to the sepulchre, 274. 

has at sepulchre apparition of angels, and is favored with the first apparition 
of Jesus, 285 seqq. 

Mary, the sister of the mother of Jesus, not identical with Salome, 228. 
Malchus, servant of high priest Caiphas, 121. 

Mazzoth, see Unleavened Bread. 

Mount of Olives, 4. 

Nails, used at the crucifixion, 213 seqq. 

Name, significance of a, among the Jews, 328. 

performing miracles in the name of Jesus, 349 seqq. 
preaching penance in the name of Christ, 349 seqq. 

Nathanael, proofs for identification of the Nathanael of John with the Bar¬ 
tholomew of the synoptics, 321 seqq. 

Nazarene, the reason for calling Jesus a Nazarene, 120. 

Nicodemus, only mentioned by Saint John, 255 seqq. 

Numbers, symbolical meaning of, 327. 

Oath, of Jesus that He is the Son of God, 136. 

Pasch, the command of Jesus to have it prepared, 25. 

Paschal lamb, the place, mode, and time of its killing, the manner of its prepara¬ 
tion, the symbol of the Paschal lamb, 36 seqq. 

supper, its rite, the Paschal lamb a sacrificial offering, the Paschal supper 
a sacrificial meal, time of the beginning of the meal, the Jewish Pasch a 
type, the dishes at the Jewish Paschal meal, 36 seqq. 

Peace offering (Chagigah) during the Octave of the Pasch, 39, 159. 

Penance, sacrament of, time and place of its institution, 311. 
required for the forgiveness of sins, 352. 


INDEX 


369 


Peter, sent with John to prepare the Paschal meal, 26. 

asks John to ascertain from the Lord who is the traitor, 71. 
praying of the Lord for Peter’s faith, Peter’s office, Peter as supreme shep¬ 
herd of the Church, 83 seqq. 

his protestation that he never would take scandal in the Lord, 95. 
strikes Malchus, 121. 
his denial, 139 seqq. 

the women instructed to announce particularly to Peter the resurrection of 
Christ, 280. 

hurries with John to the sepulchre, 282. 

his part in the draught of fishes, 323 seqq. 

his office as the supreme shepherd of the Church, 327 seqq. 

Pilate, his position, title, character, and death, 150. 

examines Jesus three times, and condemns Him to death, notwithstanding 
the fact that he had repeatedly declared Him innocent, 156 seqq. 
permits the burial of Jesus, 255. 
permits the guarding of the sepulchre, 259. 

Place of skulls, see Golgotha. 

Places for the execution of criminals among the ancients, 204 seqq. 

Poor, always with us, 13. 

their care must not be made an objection to expenditures for the honor and 
glory of God, 14. 

Potters’ Field, see Haceldama. 

Poultry, raised in Palestine at the time of Christ, 98, 145. 

Power, the Messianic, of Jesus, 340. 

Praetorium, 158. 

Prayer of the Lord for Peter, 83. 

Priests, the Apostles ordained to be, 61. 

Procula Claudia, wife of Pilate, 176. 

Qualities of the glorified body of Christ, 307, 309, 310. 

Rabboni, Jesus addressed as, 288. 

Resurrection of Christ, see also Jesus. 

belief of the Apostles in the, was neither a result of credulousness nor a 
fiction originating in passages of the Old Testament, 283, 357. 
the Apostles had to be instructed just before the Ascension about the neces¬ 
sity of the Passion and of the Glory of Christ, 348. 

Resurrection of the dead upon the death of Christ, 239. 

Rocks, cleaving of the, upon the death of Jesus, 238 seqq. 

Rufus, son of Simon of Cyrene, 201. 

Sabbath, the great, 244. 

Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of James and John, standing at a distance from 
the cross, 242. 

after the Sabbath buys spices with the other women, and proceeds on the 
morning of the day of the Resurrection to the sepulchre, 258, 274. 
apparition of an angel to her and other women at the sepulchre, 277. 
apparition to her of the Lord, 291 seqq. 


INDEX 


37 ° 

Sanhedrin, meaning of the name, origin and membership of the Sanhedrin, 
6 seqq, 133 seqq. 

its competence at the time of Christ, 133 seqq., 160 seqq. 
the night session and the morning session of the, 131 seqq., 146 seqq. 
Sanhedrists, the, determine the capture of Jesus, 3; take part in it, 117; their ac¬ 
cusation to Pilate, 159 seqq., 190. 
demand from Pilate a guard for the sepulchre, 259 seqq. 
induce the guard to spread the untruth about the happenings at the sepul¬ 
chre, 297. 

Scandal, see Apostles. 

Scourging under the Jewish and under the Roman law, 180 seqq. 

the scourging of Jesus took place in its most painful and shameful manner; 
its significance in the case of our Lord, 181 seqq. 

Scriptures, understanding of the, a gift of the Holy Ghost, 352. 

Sedile, whether the cross of Christ was provided with a, 213. 

Sepulchre, see also Graves. 

the sealing and guarding of the grave of Jesus, 259. 
the guards of the, 259 seqq. 

church of the Holy, whether it covers the places of the crucifixion and burial 
of Jesus, 205. 

Sheep of Christ, the different words used in the Greek text and their meaning, 
331 seqq. 

Sign of the Cross, its use had its origin in apostolic times, 356. 

Signs, why miracles are called, 350. 

Simon of Cyrene, 201. 

Sindon, fine linen cloth, 257. 

Sion, Mount, on which were situated: the Cenaculum, the house of Annas, the 
house of Caiphas, and the palace of Herod, 36, 128, 168. 

Snakes, meaning of the expression “to tread upon,” 350. 

Soldiers, Roman, assist in the seizure of Jesus, 117 seqq. 
scourge and mock Jesus, 181. 

form the military escort on the way to the cross, 199 seqq. 
perform the crucifixion and guard the cross, 213 seqq. 
one of them perforates the side of Jesus with a spear, 243 seqq. 
form the guard at the sepulchre, 259 seqq. 

Spices, used for the burial of Jesus, 256 seqq. 

Spikenard, 12. 

Strife for precedence among the Apostles, 76 seqq. 

Sudarium, see Veronica. 

Sunday already observed in apostolic times, 317. 

Supper, prepared by Simon the leper for Jesus, 11. 

in the Scriptures a symbol for eternal glory, 46, 82. 

Swords, the two swords of the Apostles, 101. 

Temple, the guards of the, 18, 117. 

Temptation, meaning of this expression in scriptural language, its purpose, 
means for protection against, no. 

Thieves crucified together with Christ, their action, their names, 221. 


INDEX 


37 i 


Thirst of Jesus on the cross, a symbol, 232. 

Thomas, the Apostle, etymological meaning of the name, his unbelief and its 
usefulness, 314 seqq. 

when he received the power to forgive sins, 314 seqq. 
at the sea of Tiberias, 321. 

Tiberias, residence of Herod, 168. 
lake of, 321. 

Titulus of the crucified, the titulus on the cross of Christ, 214. 

Triclinium, the manner of sitting at table, practised by Jews of the better class 
generally, and by all Jews at the Paschal supper, 71. 

Truth, Pilate’s question, the meaning of the expression to be “of the truth,” 
165 seqq. 

Uncleanness, incurred by intercourse with Gentiles, 159. 

Unleavened Bread, its form, days of unleavened bread according to the law and 
to custom, the first day of unleavened bread, various other names, its 
symbolical meaning, 37 seqq. 

Veronica St., the tradition about her, 203. 

Washing of the hands by Pilate, 179. 

Watchfulness, spiritual, in what it consists, no. 

Water, from the wound in the side of Jesus there flowed real, 247. 

Way of the Cross, its length, its direction and name, 198 seqq. 

Wicked, Jesus reckoned with them, 101. 

Wine mixed with water at the Jewish Paschal meal, liturgical regulations about 
the drinking of it at the Paschal meal, 38. 

Winter brook, see Cedron. 

Women, who followed Christ to Calvary, 202. 
who stood at the foot of the cross, 228. 
who watched the crucifixion from afar, 242. 
who attended the burial of Jesus, 258. 
who bought spices for the embalming, 258, 274. 

who visited the sepulchre on the morning of the Resurrection and beheld 
the apparition of Jesus, 277 seqq., 291 seqq. 

Words, the Seven, of Jesus on the cross, 219 seqq. 

Wound in the side of Jesus, on which side it was made, 246. 

Wounds, marks of the, retained by the glorified Christ as visible marks of the 
price of the redemption, 310. 

Zebedee, husband of Salome, and father of James and John, 242. 






























































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 

























* 1 
















A 








< 

















































































